A view of Truth: Critiques invited

[Bernie]

I'm borrowing a conception of truth from a brief comment by St. Thomas Aquinas in the first part of the Summa, Q. 16, a.1, where he describes Avicenna's definition of truth:
(Metaph. viii, 6), "The truth of each thing is a property of the essence which is immutably attached to it." (Part 1, Q.16, a.1)

Briefly, this view as I see it would assert that when God declared His creation "very good" (Gen 1:31), He was stating that it was wholly "true". When Adam fell, falsity was introduced into the creation (and thus by all sin since), from the realm of spirit, which quickly spread to matter, as seen in the decline of longevity in mankind. Truth or falsity in this realist perspective would be a necessary "v-quale" [value property] of every "bit" of information that exists, material or immaterial. We see truth and falsity only cumulatively, i.e., in the phenomenon of everyday existence. In this sense, truth and falstiy in its "raw" form can't be apprehended directly. Hence, the various theories of truth--coherence, pragmatic, epistemic theories, correspondence, etc.-- are in this view not properly theories of truth itself, but more accurately observations of how truth works.

The closest words we have in english to describe truth and falsity in this view are perfect and imperfect. To the extent the complex of information of any living organism possesses the good of health, for example, that organism has its perfection, and vice versa for its possession of falsity. In the intellect, falsification of the truth of the moral law exerts the pressure of tension and resistance, inciting (falsifying) emotion, affecting judgment and belief, and producing the relative comfort of intellectual withdrawal from the duress of its "brightness" (Jn 3:19-20, etc.).

This is enough for starters. I'm interested to see how this view would be falsified. Any willing metaphysicians?

[barnasha]

to me truth is an arbitrary concept, which we often use to mean "correct". it seems like the kind of truth being talked about here is slightly different. long ago in my philosophical explorations, i find myself toying with words in this way quite a bit. later I learned that everything is relative as such and it really freed me up.

how can you say e.g. that 'truth works', it is human beings who define it relative to their line of thinking, or points of view.

and ideal (e.g. good health) to me is not perfection, although i would concede that it is nearer so.

putting all of those boring questions behind, I definitely appreciate one sentence you wrote:

"When Adam fell, falsity was introduced into the creation (and thus by all sin since), from the realm of spirit, which quickly spread to matter, as seen in the decline of longevity in mankind"

i think you're definitely on to something good along these lines.

Was Adam's fall an ahistoric "event"? i.e. is the fall of Adam represented also within your psyche? Adam does mean 'human being' in ancient hebrew.

[Bernie]

to me truth is an arbitrary concept, which we often use to mean "correct". it seems like the kind of truth being talked about here is slightly different. long ago in my philosophical explorations, i find myself toying with words in this way quite a bit. later I learned that everything is relative as such and it really freed me up.

how can you say e.g. that 'truth works', it is human beings who define it relative to their line of thinking, or points of view.
but even the "relativeness" of truth can be explained in this insofar as truth and falsity, fragmented throughout existence, creates fuzzy logic in not only reality itself, but in apprehension and judgment, too....somewhat analogous to white and black dots combining in old fashioned newsprint to create shades of gray. The relativeness of truth, like virtually any "ism, would be an aberration from the absolute [perfect alignment of truth encountering only truth], created by countless replusions and attractions of v-qualia in various combinations of alignment or opposition.

and ideal (e.g. good health) to me is not perfection, although i would concede that it is nearer so.
Agreed. Because existence is peppered with falsity, we can only perceive that perfect health is only a possible state, one we're never able to reach in this life.

Was Adam's fall an ahistoric "event"? i.e. is the fall of Adam represented also within your psyche? Adam does mean 'human being' in ancient hebrew.
It's really not important to the view whether the fall was a literal or metaphorical event. The mechanics of truth as the primary quality of existence works the same in either scenario.

BTW, I didn't post this in Philosophy because any astute reader should quickly see that even though the topic is truth, what's presented in the Op is a theology first and foremost.

[Mikeb]

Truth and falsity, good and evil.... are not these the categories that came into play with the ingestion of the fruit (i.e. the Knowledge of Good and Evil).

Need we remember that the first choice, the one offered by God was not good and evil, or obedience and disobedience, but life and death. "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Are not we simply analyzing the infection we contracted from taking the fruit?

[barnasha]

Truth and falsity, good and evil.... are not these the categories that came into play with the ingestion of the fruit (i.e. the Knowledge of Good and Evil).

Need we remember that the first choice, the one offered by God was not good and evil, or obedience and disobedience, but life and death. "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Are not we simply analyzing the infection we contracted from taking the fruit?

thats true, i believe it was the "tree of knowledge of good and evil", right? and there wasn't specifically 'fruit'

[Mikeb]

Hum, I guess your right!

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Leaves then, or grazing on the roots, bark, seeds or flowers. Presents an unconventional image of the Eden story.

At any rate, however it was consumed, it was poison.

[Mikeb]

Actually fruit is referred to in Gen. 3:3

"But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

[Bernie]

Are not we simply analyzing the infection we contracted from taking the fruit?
Yes, that's one way to put it. To me, the infection is fascinating and worth analyzing.

[Mikeb]

A little like analyzing the shadows on Plato's cave wall or the Matrix from inside the power plant.

[barnasha]

Actually fruit is referred to in Gen. 3:3

"But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

thanks for sharing that.

incidentally I looked up strongs for the word used, and it is same in english - fruit can mean 'produce' in a metaphorical sense.

) fruit a) fruit, produce (of the ground)
b) fruit, offspring, children, progeny (of the womb)
c) fruit (of actions) (fig.)








just food :) for thought

[Bernie]

A little like analyzing the shadows on Plato's cave wall or the Matrix from inside the power plant.
Not sure of your point. Are these not worthy of scrutiny?

[UrbanMonk]

Yes, that's one way to put it. To me, the infection is fascinating and worth analyzing.

If we can "see" a world in which there is both "good" and "evil"...we are yet infected by the "fruit" of a "tree" which combines opposites together. When we see only "good", or, only "life"...then we have "overcome" the world (of opposites).

[Bernie]

If we can "see" a world in which there is both "good" and "evil"...we are yet infected by the "fruit" of a "tree" which combines opposites together. When we see only "good", or, only "life"...then we have "overcome" the world (of opposites).
Do you mean to say that if one will only refuse to "see" evil, it will evaporate?

[UrbanMonk]

Do you mean to say that if one will only refuse to "see" evil, it will evaporate?

In a way, yes, that's what I'm saying. It's akin to saying "resist the devil and he will flee from you". We "see" evil because of an ancient "wish" that it be so. We have hidden and denied and suppressed this wish. However, if we are willing to own up to it and dismiss it, we will see the "good", and only good. This is the same as saying that we will see God...and only God...Christ...and only Christ. ..life...and only life...truth...and only truth.

[Bernie]

In a way, yes, that's what I'm saying. It's akin to saying "resist the devil and he will flee from you". We "see" evil because of an ancient "wish" that it be so. We have hidden and denied and suppressed this wish. However, if we are willing to own up to it and dismiss it, we will see the "good", and only good. This is the same as saying that we will see God...and only God...Christ...and only Christ. ..life...and only life...truth...and only truth.
This is Bahai or Buddhism. I'm an esotericist and believe that the ultimate teachings of the Bible as a spiritual book holds within its literal meaning an intrinsic framework of metaphor leading to higher meaning. The salvation of all is found metaphorically in both Testaments, most specifically in Jesus' teachings, but the organized church is trapped in a literal exegesis from which it can't see the greater truth. In this regard, I can find some common ground with those religions that teach evil is illusion because it carries an illusionary power or aspect within it. But illusion is only one of its aspects, not its defining characteristic. The Lord Himself taught evil as a reality. I believe evil is the product of an intrinsic corrupted property of being, as I briefly outlined in the OP, and from this can at least agree with `Abdu'l-Bahá's statement that "evil is imperfection." In the final analysis, though, the eastern view of evil fails for me specifically because it rejects evil's literalness (and thus its being) and attempts to place it entirely in the realm of metaphor.

Christianity holds within its doctrines (at least potentially if not very often in actual belief) the more realistically appropriate perspective that literal and metaphorical are simultaneously true aspects of reality....hence, the stubborn and entirely fitting adherence to dualism in an otherwise materialistic world.

[Bernie]

Where are all God's champions of His zeal to submit humans to eternal torture? I said I'd post my version of the salvation of all. This is the beginning, the starting point. Everything has a beginning, middle and end. One can't possibly speak intelligently to the end without first understanding the beginning and middle, though 98% of all message board theology typically begins in middles and ends.

Where are all the righteous knights in shining spiritual and intellectual armour?

[barnasha]

However, if we are willing to own up to it and dismiss it, we will see the "good", and only good. This is the same as saying that we will see God...and only God...Christ...and only Christ. ..life...and only life...truth...and only truth.

This is Bahai or Buddhism

Fantastic, UrbanMonk.

Bernie, tell us why is that Bahai or Buddhism?

Luke 11:33-36 “No man when he lights a candle puts it in a secret place. neither under a bushel; but on a candle stick, that they which come in may see the light. The light of the body is the eye. Therefore, when your eye is single or healthy, your whole body also is full of light, but when your eye is evil or diseased, your body is also full of darkness. If your whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle gives you light.”


good story:


A professor asked his class: “Did God create everything that exists?” “Yes, he did.” Was the answer. “Does evil exists?” He asked. “Yes, it does.” Was the answer. “If evil exists and God created everything that exists, then God is evil.” The students were stunned and the professor was very proud of himself.

A student asked: "Professor, does darkness exist?" The professor responded, "Of course it does." The student replied, "You are wrong sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down. The young man's name -- Albert Einstein

[Heterodoxus]

"There is no God higher than the truth." ~Gandhi

[Bernie]

Originally posted by Bernie
Originally posted by UrbanMonk
However, if we are willing to own up to it and dismiss it, we will see the "good", and only good. This is the same as saying that we will see God...and only God...Christ...and only Christ. ..life...and only life...truth...and only truth.


This is Bahai or Buddhism
Fantastic, UrbanMonk.

Bernie, tell us why is that Bahai or Buddhism?
Actually, here are the words from urbanmonk's post which elicited my response....

We "see" evil because of an ancient "wish" that it be so. We have hidden and denied and suppressed this wish. However, if we are willing to own up to it and dismiss it, we will see the "good", and only good.
The words above suggest that evil is largely or wholly illusory, which is a tenet of both Buddhism and the Bahai faith. I disagree with this, and with the idea in some circles, mainly Catholic, I think, that evil is merely the absence of good. This seems to have been Aquinas' approach, and anything by Aquinas seems pretty much automatically considered as doctrine in Catholicism.

It's true that one aspect of evil is the absence of good. What the professor in your story failed to realize is that every analogy ultimately breaks down somewhere, and this one does so in the comparison of a spiritual and universal function with a material one. The spiritual is to us largley unkown in our present condition (we see through a glass darkly), and to take a physical principle and assign to it the weight of whole truth is imho a recipe for error for the reason just elaborated. The religious world tends to automatically hold metaphor in low esteen [except when it's being used to prove your or my own point, of course] in the realm of truth, though I think for the wrong reasons. We tend to see similitude as "less than" truth, which misses metaphor's function, which ultimately uses the "less than" of events and functions in time and space to reveal "more than" or higher levels of meaning.

God designed His creation in such a way that we draw comparisons to spiritual principles from the corporeal world....in fact, the structure of Biblical metaphor is based entirely on similitude between concrete reality--history, parable, etc.--to point up higher spiritual truth or reality. In the final analysis, the salvation of all is "hidden" in Scripture in precisely this structure, and this is what I contend for. Once seen, it's found amazingly to be more rational and coherent than the doctrine of eternal torment, and it has been right in front of our eyes as long as the Bible has existed. While virtually all other Christian universalists that I've read take the approach that the salvation of all hinges on an interpretation of certain words, my own universalism leads from a certain view of reality in (imo) a coherent march to the conclusion that the salvation of all is the single greatest metaphor arising from both Testaments. There is no greater testament to the power of God's work in breathing truth and life into His written word than the rationally esoteric view of the salvation of all.

I digress.....Hope I've answered your question.

[barnasha]

What the professor in your story failed to realize is that

you mean the student, right?

every analogy ultimately breaks down somewhere, and this one does so in the comparison of a spiritual and universal function with a material one. The spiritual is to us largley unkown in our present condition (we see through a glass darkly), and to take a physical principle and assign to it the weight of whole truth is imho a recipe for error for the reason just elaborated. The religious world tends to automatically hold metaphor in low esteen [except when it's being used to prove your or my own point, of course] in the realm of truth, though I think for the wrong reasons. We tend to see similitude as "less than" truth, which misses metaphor's function, which ultimately uses the "less than" of events and functions in time and space to reveal "more than" or higher levels of meaning.


I don't understand. I fail to see the breakdown of the analogy as any different whether or not looked at from a 'religious' point of view. A "religious" teaching usually does not intend to be separate from anything else, rather, we look at understanding things they way they "really" are, not a parallel "spiritual universe" which is not applicable in our day to day lives.



God designed His creation in such a way that we draw comparisons to spiritual principles from the corporeal world....in fact, the structure of Biblical metaphor is based entirely on similitude between concrete reality--history, parable, etc.--to point up higher spiritual truth or reality. In the final analysis, the salvation of all is "hidden" in Scripture in precisely this structure, and this is what I contend for.

Well, Jesus taught that we must look within ourselves, so while I cannot exactly disagree with what you said above, I would say that one does not need a scripture to to realize it (and that was the point made in the scripture)


Once seen, it's found amazingly to be more rational and coherent than the doctrine of eternal torment, and it has been right in front of our eyes as long as the Bible has existed. While virtually all other Christian universalists that I've read take the approach that the salvation of all hinges on an interpretation of certain words, my own universalism leads from a certain view of reality in (imo) a coherent march to the conclusion that the salvation of all is the single greatest metaphor arising from both Testaments. There is no greater testament to the power of God's work in breathing truth and life into His written word than the rationally esoteric view of the salvation of all.

I digress.....Hope I've answered your question.

Yes, thank you for the very thorough and clear answer. I think your "digression" is also a very good one.

[UrbanMonk]

This is Bahai or Buddhism.

How does this judgement help you understand what I'm saying?


The Lord Himself taught evil as a reality.

Absolutely not. He taught that the terror of Rome (the world) is not a reality, defying it's laws of pain and death and gravity.

But illusion is only one of its aspects, not its defining characteristic.

Illusion and reality do not mix. There is no overlap...no common ground. There are no "real" aspects of illusion. Illusion is a mockery of reality. It's supposed to seem real. That is what illusion is all about! And if you think it shares attributes with reality, then illusion has succeeded in temporarily confusing you.

I believe evil is the product of an intrinsic corrupted property of being, as I briefly outlined in the OP, and from this can at least agree with `Abdu'l-Bahá's statement that "evil is imperfection."

Perfection is a Being, yes. This is the only Being. Imperfection, then, is the concept of another being...one that is imperfect. This is a concept, not a truth. So, "the world" is the concept of an imperfect being. It deems to prove that perfection is not the only "reality". This is a "lie". If Perfection is the only Being, who or what is lying?

In the final analysis, though, the eastern view of evil fails for me specifically because it rejects evil's literalness (and thus its being) and attempts to place it entirely in the realm of metaphor.

Sorry to disappoint your aspirations. "The world" is entirely a metaphor...symbols and concepts antithetical to the Perfection.

Christianity holds within its doctrines (at least potentially if not very often in actual belief) the more realistically appropriate perspective that literal and metaphorical are simultaneously true aspects of reality....hence, the stubborn and entirely fitting adherence to dualism in an otherwise materialistic world.

Isn't this what you are doing when you insist that evil is a literal reality? You are saying that there is both good and evil. This is the mental meme that orthodox christianity suffers under...still eating from the "tree of good and evil"...and still dying thereof. Should they eat of the tree of life only...they would live.

[Bernie]

Hello barnasha,

Originally posted by Bernie
What the professor in your story failed to realize is that
you mean the student, right?
No, I think the story was supposed to portray the professor as defeated by Einstein's rejoinder when he might have realized that analogies, because they are not identical to the truths they portray, ultimately fail on some point. I think the analogies used by Einstein fall short in that material reality is not identical to spiritual reality.

I don't understand. I fail to see the breakdown of the analogy as any different whether or not looked at from a 'religious' point of view. A "religious" teaching usually does not intend to be separate from anything else, rather, we look at understanding things they way they "really" are, not a parallel "spiritual universe" which is not applicable in our day to day lives.
I don't think it's at all a matter of looking at something on the other side of the mirror, but in a comparison of two very different coexistent aspects of reality. Human language pertains far more to the material than immaterial world because we're bombarded from birth with sense information. Intuition in this life plays a much lesser role in the apprehension. Nothing new here, of course, moral philosophers noticed this early on. So it's not about failing to understand things "as they really are", but in understanding things we see sparesly in the 'third dimension' of the mind while its concentration is mostly on two dimensional reality.

Well, Jesus taught that we must look within ourselves, so while I cannot exactly disagree with what you said above, I would say that one does not need a scripture to to realize it (and that was the point made in the scripture)
Okay, but the point was not about being limited to truth existing only in Scripture, it was about the structure of metaphor as using examples in space and time to portray deeper spiritual truth.

[Bernie]

Hi UrbanMonk,

Originally posted by Bernie
This is Bahai or Buddhism.
How does this judgement help you understand what I'm saying?
I don't understand this question.

The Lord Himself taught evil as a reality.
Absolutely not. He taught that the terror of Rome (the world) is not a reality, defying it's laws of pain and death and gravity.
"You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'" (Mat 15:7-9)

hy·poc·ri·sy (h¹-p¼k“r¹-s¶) n1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. 2. An act or instance of such falseness.

Evil is defined and expressed in speech and act with definitions like this. Inert falsity, whether in spirit or matter, becomes dynamic and alive in intellectual operation. To profess falsely for personal gain is not an 'absence' of good, it is a conscious [more likely a semiconscious] act of evil. We can divide good in two through infinity and never arive at "evil", only lesser amounts of good. The notion of evil as purely a privation suffers from logical incoherence.

The evil of sin is specifically an intellectual capacity and power. We are discussing evil here, but in my own view of truth in the OP, evil plays a secondary role in that it's an intellectual manifestation based on a qualitative deformity, the property of falsity. I believe this abnormality of an otherwise perfect existence is the metaphorically demonstrated object of God's wrath as revealed in Scripture more so than individual humans or the evil acts of humans. Again, look at the structure of metaphor. The acts performed in time and space are themselves the players on the stage representing an underlying cause, they are signifiers of a disease in spirit, as Jesus quite clearly taught:

"Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated? But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man." (Mat 15:17-20)

If by your comment, "He taught that the terror of Rome (the world) is not a reality, defying it's laws of pain and death and gravity." you mean to suggest that Jesus' words and message are pure metaphor for something entirely different in kind with what traditional Christianity teaches, we'll have to disagree. One thing I noticed of the few Christian mystics of old I've read is that they all shared a common view that literal and spiritual realities are two sides of a common coin. All were deeply respectful of the literal sense of the Bible and all considered it as the starting point of moral truth from which deeper truths could be mined.

Illusion and reality do not mix. There is no overlap...no common ground. There are no "real" aspects of illusion. Illusion is a mockery of reality. It's supposed to seem real. That is what illusion is all about! And if you think it shares attributes with reality, then illusion has succeeded in temporarily confusing you.
It's hard to understand how illusion can suceed in temporarily confusing me if it has no reality. How can comething that's not real "confuse" anyone?

[UrbanMonk]

It's hard to understand how illusion can suceed in temporarily confusing me if it has no reality. How can comething that's not real "confuse" anyone?

Well if you've ever seen magicians do their thing on TV you should be able to see how illusions can confuse us into believing what the magician would have us believe...wondering whether the trick was real or not. The illusion that I'm calling "the world" is built more shrewdly than the average stage magicians props. We don't understand how the props are built, especially the props that prop up the world stage. And so, in ignorance, we take what is fake for real...until we catch on...till we figure out how the trick is built. Jesus understood that "the world" is built on "sand". Recent scientific discoveries suggest that "the world" (the universe) is of a holographic nature that is reduceable to a granular or sand-like foundation (core consistency, basic building block). In this context, "sand" and partical physics may be synonymous. If it's a holograph, this implies intent (intent to decieve) by a powerful mind. Are you aware of how much space there is between the atoms that make up physical objects? What appears to quite solid is mostly not even there. The construction of the human eye does not permit nothingness to be obvious. I'm saying that eyesight is but one of many modes of deception. All other human senses are modes of self-deception. In so many ways, "the world" is an assault on our sensibilities 24/7/365, habituating us to take an illusion for real.

[Bernie]

Well if you've ever seen magicians do their thing on TV you should be able to see how illusions can confuse us into believing what the magician would have us believe...wondering whether the trick was real or not. The illusion that I'm calling "the world" is built more shrewdly than the average stage magicians props. We don't understand how the props are built, especially the props that prop up the world stage. And so, in ignorance, we take what is fake for real...until we catch on...till we figure out how the trick is built. Jesus understood that "the world" is built on "sand". Recent scientific discoveries suggest that "the world" (the universe) is of a holographic nature that is reduceable to a granular or sand-like foundation (core consistency, basic building block). In this context, "sand" and partical physics may be synonymous. If it's a holograph, this implies intent (intent to decieve) by a powerful mind. Are you aware of how much space there is between the atoms that make up physical objects? What appears to quite solid is mostly not even there. The construction of the human eye does not permit nothingness to be obvious. I'm saying that eyesight is but one of many modes of deception. All other human senses are modes of self-deception. In so many ways, "the world" is an assault on our sensibilities 24/7/365, habituating us to take an illusion for real.
But in your magician metaphor I don't see how you can hide the fact that the illusion was a real thing. Illusion itself, created by deception, is a real aspect of the magician's work. If you wish to deny reality to universals, then love is as illusory and unreal as hate, and these are related to true and false as branch is to tree.

Yes, I'm aware of space between atoms, but that's not the reality God has placed us in. I haven't heard that everything is sand, but if true it'll stand the test of time, scholarship and taxpayer-funded research. For now I see no reason to abandon the realist position. Btw, the eye isn't a very good mode of deception, since there are now instruments which bring most of atomic reality within sight in one way or another. There's really no idealist bugaboo here, UM, we just needed time to find the technology to make other stuff visible to us. In the end, aren't you really just taking the dual reality God created and extrapolating it out in different directions? You seem to just be shuffling the cards of concept and percept and laying them out on the table in different configurations. There's still two kinds of stuff no matter if we call some of it illusion or not.

[UrbanMonk]

But in your magician metaphor I don't see how you can hide the fact that the illusion was a real thing.

Excuse me? Are you saying magicians tricks are real?

Illusion itself, created by deception, is a real aspect of the magician's work.

The only real aspect of the illusion that is "the world" is the mind of the maker. This is what is being saved. All else is unsavable.

If you wish to deny reality to universals, then love is as illusory and unreal as hate, and these are related to true and false as branch is to tree.

I don't wish to deny reality to universals...but this is the intent of the illusionist. Love is real, and only love is real. This is a universal truth. The illusion would deny this, and substitute it's own version of love instead.

Yes, I'm aware of space between atoms, but that's not the reality God has placed us in.

It's not Christ's reality, so it's not ours either. The illusionist places our reality within a matrix of spinning particles separated by great distances.

I haven't heard that everything is sand, but if true it'll stand the test of time, scholarship and taxpayer-funded research.

They're still looking for the "God particle". But so long as they look for God in a particle, they are building upon the "sand". They have reason to believe that the foundation of "the world" is particulate, expecially when talking about form(ations).



For now I see no reason to abandon the realist position.]

Retranslation: For now you don't see any reason to abandon the illusionists position.

Btw, the eye isn't a very good mode of deception, since there are now instruments which bring most of atomic reality within sight in one way or another.

Until such instruments, the eye concept was a very good mode of deception. Meanwhile, such instruments merely maintain the eye concept. They cannot measure the mind that makes the illusion. They can only measure/observe aspects of the illusion. The illusionist, as always, will have you see exactly what it wants you to see...as long as you look "externally".

There's really no idealist bugaboo here, UM, we just needed time to find the technology to make other stuff visible to us.

Technology has already implied what makes stuff visible to you...the transformation of light by an observer. The "observer" is the illusionist. And "you" are merely one of the ways it observes. You are being used.


In the end, aren't you really just taking the dual reality God created and extrapolating it out in different directions?

No. This is what the illusionist does. There is no duality in God.

You seem to just be shuffling the cards of concept and percept and laying them out on the table in different configurations.

This is what the illusionist does.

There's still two kinds of stuff no matter if we call some of it illusion or not.

No. This assumes duality is the truth. Rather, oneness is the truth.

[Bernie]

There's still two kinds of stuff no matter if we call some of it illusion or not.
No. This assumes duality is the truth. Rather, oneness is the truth.
Duality doesn't deny oneness. You're forcing this on it.

The only real aspect of the illusion that is "the world" is the mind of the maker.
Are you a fan of Hegel?

Excuse me? Are you saying magicians tricks are real?
No. I'm saying the concept of illusion is real; illusion--in itself--as an informational concept is real, else we would have no word for what the magician did. The reality of a unicorn or vampire is found in the the conceptual manipulation of known things (horse and horn, human, the opposite of death, sharp teeth, etc.) and has further reality in screen or other graphic portrayal. All render information to the mind, and only real things...things that have reality of some sort...can offer informational content to perception and insight.

There is no duality in God.
I'd agree. Again, you seem to be forcing ideas on what I'm saying that just ain't so. It is perfectly appropriate for God to create a universe with a dual structure if He so desires. No rules I know of say He can't.

Your piecing together a reality out of a wide variety of creeds and tenets creates an interesting kaleidoscope UM, I'll give you this much.

[UrbanMonk]

Duality doesn't deny oneness. You're forcing this on it.

I'm saying it most certainly does. Otherwise, you'd be forcing a duality on oneness.


Are you a fan of Hegel?

Not familiar with Hegel.

No. I'm saying the concept of illusion is real; illusion--in itself--as an informational concept is real, else we would have no word for what the magician did. The reality of a unicorn or vampire is found in the the conceptual manipulation of known things (horse and horn, human, the opposite of death, sharp teeth, etc.) and has further reality in screen or other graphic portrayal. All render information to the mind, and only real things...things that have reality of some sort...can offer informational content to perception and insight.

I'm saying that the illusion gets its power from Reality...as if it were some kind of psychic vampire sucking the blood of "Christ". The power (blood) of Christ is it's only reality...what gives a lie a "life".


I'd agree. Again, you seem to be forcing ideas on what I'm saying that just ain't so. It is perfectly appropriate for God to create a universe with a dual structure if He so desires. No rules I know of say He can't.

As a concept, a dual universe is indeed lawless. There are no rules except those the illusionist makes up as he goes along. It's not appropriate for the Truth to create a lie or for a Whole to make a part. It's not really possible. At best, it is imaginative. At worst, illusive/delusive.

Your piecing together a reality out of a wide variety of creeds and tenets creates an interesting kaleidoscope UM, I'll give you this much.

Thanks. I trust it is not just a patchwork, but rather a comprehensive cohesive consistent thought system.

[Bernie]

Originally posted by Bernie
Duality doesn't deny oneness. You're forcing this on it.
I'm saying it most certainly does. Otherwise, you'd be forcing a duality on oneness.
I wasn't clear; what I mean is, it seems to me entirely conceivable that God is entirely One, yet all will in some real sense be made one--as Jesus noted in John 17--in eternity with Him. Because God designed a dualistic reality for us to function in doesn't mean literally all existence outside ours is this way. I'm not at all forcing duality on one, just seeing that the two are not as inimical to one another as you pretend.

In fact, the only duality in the spiritual realm or in the universals that I can see is human spirit. Universals are typically thought of as non reductive, but I believe theology is embellished and made more coherent by the reduction of human spirit to a fragmentally qualitative state, which has causative force on act [behavior]. If God assigns a specific portion of intellect-producing spirit or life force to every human, it seems at least compatible with the capacity of the will that man was also endued with the power to effect change in this force. The Biblical record indicates this is in fact what has happened.

I trust it is not just a patchwork, but rather a comprehensive cohesive consistent thought system.
But though you offer lots of opinion and make many claims, you leave more questions begging than are answered imo.

A big one to me would be how you would explain to the mother whose eleven year old daughter just took a bullet to the head in a drive-by intended for her 18 year old brother that the evil in this act is just an illusion. How would you convince the wife still black and blue from her drunken husband's second beating this week that evil is a magician's trick, that the good part of her husband is the only real living part of him while the part that bloodied her is smoke and mirrors? In other words, what practical value does your view have in the real world outside those living in a comfortable Better Homes and Gardens tri-level with six bedrooms, four full baths and an in-ground pool ?

I believe Christianity has real answers for these folks. Hey, humanity is rotten to the core, evil runs out of the pores of the human soul like water through a seive, but God reached down to us, came down and was mocked, beaten and died so that when we die for our sins, the sacrifice of His blood guarantees our resurrection from this death to new life with him. There's something we can take to the bank.

[UrbanMonk]

I wasn't clear; what I mean is, it seems to me entirely conceivable that God is entirely One, yet all will in some real sense be made one--as Jesus noted in John 17--in eternity with Him. Because God designed a dualistic reality for us to function in doesn't mean literally all existence outside ours is this way. I'm not at all forcing duality on one, just seeing that the two are not as inimical to one another as you pretend.

Well, the illusion of duality is not inimical to the truth. But the truth is indeed inimical to the illusion. So, the illusion is well defended against it.

In fact, the only duality in the spiritual realm or in the universals that I can see is human spirit. Universals are typically thought of as non reductive, but I believe theology is embellished and made more coherent by the reduction of human spirit to a fragmentally qualitative state, which has causative force on act [behavior].

Honestly, I don't think I understand what it is you're trying to say here. If both God and humans exist, that is a duality. But if only God exists, that is describing a oneness. And what is One does not even appear to be anything else but itSelf. So either man is God, or man does not exist.

If God assigns a specific portion of intellect-producing spirit or life force to every human, it seems at least compatible with the capacity of the will that man was also endued with the power to effect change in this force. The Biblical record indicates this is in fact what has happened.

I would go so far as to say that the "prodigal Son" is the "god" who has assigned man his lot. Man's lot does not change until man changes his mind...that is, which mind he chooses to think with. Until man thinks with the "mind of Christ", man will think with the pseudo-mind of the prodigal Son. Till he changes his mind, man is a "slave" to the thought processes of the prodigal Son...his brain a mere router in a pre-programmed directive that plays out not "live" but "memorex". In this state, man is not free. He seems to make choices. But all choices he could possibly make are all anticipated and pre-programmed. Man, thus, has only one true choice. He can choose to think with the mind of Christ. This gradually sets him free from prescripted scenarios.


But though you offer lots of opinion and make many claims, you leave more questions begging than are answered imo.

Well it's a whole other thought system, so yes, there will be many questions whenever affirmations are stated.

A big one to me would be how you would explain to the mother whose eleven year old daughter just took a bullet to the head in a drive-by intended for her 18 year old brother that the evil in this act is just an illusion. How would you convince the wife still black and blue from her drunken husband's second beating this week that evil is a magician's trick, that the good part of her husband is the only real living part of him while the part that bloodied her is smoke and mirrors? In other words, what practical value does your view have in the real world outside those living in a comfortable Better Homes and Gardens tri-level with six bedrooms, four full baths and an in-ground pool ?

I would let them grieve until they are ready to hear about a better way to "live" through a better way to think. Clearly, the way she has thought has not brought this woman much comfort, yes? Due to grievances, this woman may not be ready to hear about anything other than vengeance in this incarnation. To the degree she is willing to forgive, she can hear about a new way to think that will bring her to a state of invulnerability sooner than later. The prodigal Son believes in guilt, and guilt demands punishment. This woman is punishing herself so long as she does not address guilt driven belief systems that run deep in her mind.

I believe Christianity has real answers for these folks. Hey, humanity is rotten to the core, evil runs out of the pores of the human soul like water through a seive, but God reached down to us, came down and was mocked, beaten and died so that when we die for our sins, the sacrifice of His blood guarantees our resurrection from this death to new life with him. There's something we can take to the bank.

What "christianity" offers is the hope that those who do evil to us will somehow be punished for what they did. It offers us salvation through attack (Father on Son). It then offers us "death". And then it offers us the "hope" of a fantastic lifestyle that, compared to what I am offering, is a "sacrifice" of what God has given us already.

[Bernie]

Hello UM,

Honestly, I don't think I understand what it is you're trying to say here. If both God and humans exist, that is a duality. But if only God exists, that is describing a oneness. And what is One does not even appear to be anything else but itSelf. So either man is God, or man does not exist.
Duality arises from opposites. For God and man to exist as separate entities is not a dualism any more than an orange and its peel produce a duality. You're arguing for pantheism here, right?

The "oneness" of God and His initial creation is not harmed in the ordering of separate things per se, it was in that everything in created existence was one-- true or perfect--"very good" (Gen 1:31)--but became two in the fall, as falsity was introduced by choice into human spirit, from whence it spread and exists fragmentally in all information. All goods and evils reduce to a base true or false. The perfection of pure Truth is the oneness we've fallen from.

One reason I don't quickly dismiss your view as meaningless spiritualizing [as i would certainly have immediately done a few years ago] is that I came to understand that Jesus consistently points us in His teachings toward higher levels of meaning. His language was almost always figurative. In this, He seems to pretty clearly be telling us we have to stretch and reach beyond the particulars of time and space to find our answers in Truth. If we compare this to current Christianity and its literal-based interpretive structure, it doesn't shed very complimentary light on the organized church. Brings to mind Isa 42:22: "But this is a people plundered and despoiled; All of them are trapped in caves, Or are hidden away in prisons; They have become a prey with none to deliver them, And a spoil, with none to say, "Give them back!"

Because the Lord placed so much value in His teachings on meaning which lies beyond eyes which observe particulars, I now spend much more time trying to find threads of truth in other views. I thank God for the freedom to explore now what in past years I would have quickly deemed 'harmful' to even consider. Yours is particularly interesting, as I can find many strands of agreement with what you're saying. For instance, early in the discussion you noted, "If we can "see" a world in which there is both "good" and "evil"...we are yet infected by the "fruit" of a "tree" which combines opposites together. When we see only "good", or, only "life"...then we have "overcome" the world (of opposites).", you may well be accurately describing the spiritual side of Jesus' teaching. I've toyed with the idea that even Christianity might itself be only a part in a bigger picture. But pretending evil or falsity doesn't exist in some real way seems to me to go too far. One doesn't cure illusion/evil with the illusion that it[evil] is not real.

Hence, I'll stand on the well-proven idea that because of our fallen nature, prudence dictates evil's reality. For instance, your response,

I would let them grieve until they are ready to hear about a better way to "live" through a better way to think. Clearly, the way she has thought has not brought this woman much comfort, yes? Due to grievances, this woman may not be ready to hear about anything other than vengeance in this incarnation. To the degree she is willing to forgive, she can hear about a new way to think that will bring her to a state of invulnerability sooner than later. The prodigal Son believes in guilt, and guilt demands punishment. This woman is punishing herself so long as she does not address guilt driven belief systems that run deep in her mind.
....really does nothing to address my question. These are answers that could equally as well have been given by a conservative Christian. My point was, how do you convince someone who suffers evil, something you define as illusion, that it is really only illusion and nothing at all? The first example in my last post saw evil forcing its way into spatiotemporality as her innocent daughter lay dead in a pool of blood on the floor. The second saw evil coming at her as her husband's fist drew back for another blow. This is where the eastern convention falls apart for me. All who claim illusion for evil and place only goodness in being use the same dualistic language--good, bad, true, false, right, wrong, concept, percept, thing, idea, ought, ought not, etc.-- as the rest of us. This language has meaning to you, too, such that you hypothetically live your life according to these norms, in greater or lesser degrees than others, like everyone else.

The tone of your last comment.....
What "christianity" offers is the hope that those who do evil to us will somehow be punished for what they did. It offers us salvation through attack (Father on Son). It then offers us "death". And then it offers us the "hope" of a fantastic lifestyle that, compared to what I am offering, is a "sacrifice" of what God has given us already."
....can be rationally explained by the tenets noted in the OP: tension and resistance between true and false find expression in the particular beliefs of human thought as either a love of truth and light or bitterness/resistance against/to light , and love of darkness (Jn 3:20, with explanation of our nature in v. 19) Evil as illusion with no causal power has no adequate answer here. What do you find inimical in the message of the atoning blood of Christ UM?

[barnasha]

God as a concept exists within our conceptual frameworks and theologies.

God itself does not manifest "within reality" as a "being" or "entity", otherwise it would have ceased to be the creator of "all that is" and become "part of God's creation"

Incidentally,that is where most of you get tripped up....

[UrbanMonk]

Duality arises from opposites. For God and man to exist as separate entities is not a dualism any more than an orange and its peel produce a duality. You're arguing for pantheism here, right?

Let me introduce you to a new term that I must coin to explain what it is I'm trying to say. Rather than pantheism, I'm arguing a kind of REVERSE PANTHEISM in which everything is GOD AND NOT GOD at the same time. This is another way of saying that the world is the "fruit" of a combination of opposites, namely whatever is opposite of God. Thus, 'good and not good ("evil")'..."life and death"...God and not God...are all saying the same thing. The key is to see that the "tree of good and evil" is entirely OTHER THAN the "tree of life". There is no overlap...no comparison...no similarity...no common ground. Dualism says that only the tree of "good and evil" exists. Pure-non-dualism says that only the "tree of life" exists and nothing else. If the tree of duality "exists", then, it must be some kind of magic tree...something that is produced through IMAGINATION. Imagination is opposed to knowledge. Imagination REVERSES everything that is true...reversing GOD. That is why, instead of pantheism, I argue that the world is a MASK (veil) over the "face of Christ".

[UrbanMonk]

These are answers that could equally as well have been given by a conservative Christian. My point was, how do you convince someone who suffers evil, something you define as illusion, that it is really only illusion and nothing at all?

This is essentially the task of the Holy Spirit, who has all the answers. I am merely stepping up to play a role in the Spirit's "plan of salvation"...which is to deliver us from our temptations...from the illusions we have concocted using the power of God against our S(s)elf. The answer is gradually, gently...over time...when the "student" is "ready". Yes, it's better if minds are not agitated. So the time to convince is somewhere between assault and a "Better Homes and Gardens" lifestyle. The latter lifestyleist may see no need for change while the former lifestylist may be too agitated to comprehend what brinds peace. What brings peace is forgiveness. The more we forgive, the less we punish ourselves...until attack is no longer a part of our mental vocabulary (belief system). When the concept of attack has been entirely dismissed, we will find that we are invulnerable at every level. As "sinless" beings...we cannot suffer pain.

The first example in my last post saw evil forcing its way into spatiotemporality as her innocent daughter lay dead in a pool of blood on the floor. The second saw evil coming at her as her husband's fist drew back for another blow. This is where the eastern convention falls apart for me. All who claim illusion for evil and place only goodness in being use the same dualistic language--good, bad, true, false, right, wrong, concept, percept, thing, idea, ought, ought not, etc.-- as the rest of us. This language has meaning to you, too, such that you hypothetically live your life according to these norms, in greater or lesser degrees than others, like everyone else.

I'm not saying that the woman's ordeal is an illusion while the "Better Homes and Gardens" lifestyle is real. I'm saying that in a dualistic world, neither the "good" nor the "evil" are real. And yet, we are somehow dealing with them as if they were real. Why? I'm am trying to explain why...so that the suffering inherent in duality may come to an end.