WOF: Three or four things that Are on my mind. [Archive]

SanHeChuan

06-02-2007, 09:44 PM

Way off topic

Three or four things that Are on my mind.

Topics
1) Global Warming.
2) Christianity the Cult of Evil.
3) The expanding earth theory?

1) Everything Al Gore said was a lie. :mad: F_cking hippie drama queens :p

I saw yet another reference to this recently. Yes the earth is warming, at least in the northern hemisphere. In the southern hemisphere it's actually cooling down. The warming of the earth is a natural phenomena that we have no control of.

Of the trace green house gases CO2 is indeed currently the most abundant in our atmosphere. However this is through no fault of our own. Compared to natural production of green house gases by volcanoes, tree, forest fires, and evaporation of sea water, the CO2 we produce is but a drop in a very large bucket.

Water vapor in the atmosphere is way more abundant that CO2 and far more conducive to the green house effect. Hydrogen cars don't sound like such a good idea now, do they? :eek:

The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere happened after the earth started to heat up, not before. There is a lot of CO2 locked in the ocean, when that water evaporates as the earth heats up, naturally more CO2 would be released into the atmosphere. Forest fires are more common in a hot climate producing more CO2, and trees and veggies like the heat, crops yield more in a warm climate and produce more CO2.

We are just getting over the Little Ice Age which lasted from the 16Th to mid 19Th century. During the middle ages (800-1300AD) the earth was warmer than it is now.

The sun is producing more heat, as clearly demonstrated by the rise is temperature of other plants like Mars.

Ice makes heat. Large sheets of ice reflect light and heat back into the atmosphere. The earth warms up, the ice melts. The increase in moister causes increased cloud coverage which blocks the suns rays. The earth cools down. rinse repeat.

A scientific consensus my A$$! :rolleyes:

http://www.iceagenow.com/
http://www.stopdumbingdown.com/

I'm all for the environment, but many of the so called alternative fuels will likely be just as hazardous to the environment if not more so. We should be growing food not alternative cash crops for energy consumption.

Control through fear

SanHeChuan

06-02-2007, 09:52 PM

2) Christianity the Cult of Evil

I'm a live and let live kind of guy, but Christians are really starting to tick me off. Their beliefs are starting to hedge in my life, liberty, and pursuit of all that.

The final straw was this new creationism museum. This is when I new things where starting to tip, NOT in my favor.

Is it me or are Christians getting stupider. There seems to be a revival of this "take the bible literally" movement recently. Personally I thought it was better when they when it was mostly thought of as parables and stories.

Christians always worked through fear, FEAR God, your going to Hell. But recently their Alarmism and ignorance is really putting me off of a lot of issues.

Like Stem cell research. They seem to have it in their little minds that scientists use aborted baby fetuses for their research. When the cells they use haven't seen the inside of a woman since the egg was harvested. They are just sitting in cold storage until they will be disposed of as medical waste. Or somatic cell nuclear transfer which doesn't even involve the fertilization of an egg.

My arguement is this

Lets assume God is Real, I don't pretend to be able to argue with blind faith.

My question is this, IF you believe in Him, WHY would you want to?

GOD is an as$hole. He doesn't display any characteristics that I find virtuous. He is a vain, ego maniacal bully. Outside of what ever feel good sermons they give on Sunday, the bible is full of God advocating, if not out right participating in Murder, rape, slavery, and human sacrifice. All things generally consider pretty freaking evil by today's standards. But I guess it's OK if God says so right? :rolleyes:

Lets take a look a JOB, a fairly common story. Because of Gods 'Pride' in the faith of job he consents to the Killing of relatively Innocent people such as his servants? and children. When Job asks for some justification for this, God comes down and says, because he can. He goes on and on about all He knows and all He can do, and pretty much just makes the argument of Might Makes Rights. God is all powerful, so he can do whatever he wants. That sounds like a bully to me. How about when he killed the first born children of Egypt were they not innocent, are your children innocent? :eek:

Why would God condemn a good man to hell for not Worshiping Him. In other words why would God condemn a man to hell for not appealing to His vanity. If you are a good man, in that you have never committed a sin against another man. The first 4 commandments all appeal to Gods vanity so anyone who was not a believer is automatically a sinner, but the next 6, the ones people actually know...

1) I am the Lord your God
2) Thou shalt have no other gods before me, Thou shalt not make for yourself an idol
3) Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of your God
4) Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
...These ones...
5) Honor Thy Mother and Father
6) Thou shalt not murder
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery
8) Thou shalt not steal
9) Thou shalt not bear false witness
10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house.

Say he didn't break commandments 5 through 10. That man should spend eternity in hell? Any man who could be considered saintly by his peers by virtue of his deeds should spend eternity in Hell fire, for being Buddhist or whatever? I don't buy that, that's not any Justice I know of. And how is eternity in Hell a fit punishment for any sin of earth, life is short, eternity is forever.

www.evilbible.com

a very few quotes

In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

Jephthah Burns His Daughter

"At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

"So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory. He thoroughly defeated the Ammonites from Aroer to an area near Minnith – twenty towns – and as far away as Abel-keramim. Thus Israel subdued the Ammonites. When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter – his only child – ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. "My daughter!" he cried out. "My heart is breaking! What a tragedy that you came out to greet me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot take it back." And she said, "Father, you have made a promise to the LORD. You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. But first let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin." "You may go," Jephthah said. And he let her go away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. When she returned home, her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin. So it has become a custom in Israel for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah's daughter." (Judges 11:29-40 NLT)

God Will Kill Children

The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Control through fear

SanHeChuan

06-02-2007, 09:57 PM

3) Expanding earth theory :confused:

Pretty cool sh!t :eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U

Takuan

06-02-2007, 10:27 PM

1. Yeah, many of the global warming theorists kind of ignore theories of random climat shifts. Many of my friends (we're engineers -.-) feel like we're shunned in conversations when we try to explain theories of climate shifts in the place of global warming.

2. No comment for my own safety, but nonetheless I agree for the most part :)

3. I have been reading up on this lately, it's extremely interesting, and would also coincide with other scientific theories that acknowledge additional incomprehensible dimensions. But it makes me wonder how strong the other dimensions would be to negate the gravitational effect each particle on earth has on eachother, and actually pull them apart! Very frightening to think about XD.

Good points :D,

SaintSage

06-02-2007, 10:29 PM

2) Christianity the Cult of Evil

I'm a live and let live kind of guy, but Christians are really starting to tick me off. Their beliefs are starting to hedge in my life, liberty, and pursuit of all that.

I can't tell you how to feel about something like that, but that is an oversimplification

The final straw was this new creationism museum. This is when I new things where starting to tip, NOT in my favor.

Is it me or are Christians getting stupider. There seems to be a revival of this "take the bible literally" movement recently. Personally I thought it was better when they when it was mostly thought of as parables and stories.

Not all Christians take the Bible as the LITERAL word. Many (if not most) take it as the inspired Word, ineffeble only in matters of faith and religion. Yes, Evanglical and Fundamentalist theology is on the rise in the US, but they are by no means the majority. They are simple the most vocal and the media loves to show them. Oh, the Catholic Church also fully acknowledges the legitimacy of Evolution.

Christians always worked through fear, FEAR God, your going to Hell. But recently their Alarmism and ignorance is really putting me off of a lot of issues.

Again, oversimplification. I was brought into the (Catholic) Church by love. Not one person mentioned Hell. In fact, the Church emphasises love over all things. The Church does not take say that if you don't do this or this you are going to Hell. Rather, the Church stresses that it's teachings only help one come into communion with God for prosperity in this life and the next.

Like Stem cell research. They seem to have it in their little minds that scientists use aborted baby fetuses for their research. When the cells they use haven't seen the inside of a woman since the egg was harvested. They are just sitting in cold storage until they will be disposed of as medical waste. Or somatic cell nuclear transfer which doesn't even involve the fertilization of an egg.

First of all, not all Christians share the same theology. Second, that "harvested" egg IS fertilized outside of the womb and then destroyed. I suggest you read up on different Christian perspectives on Sex and Natural law. It would help you at least understand where we come from. "Theology of the Body" by Pope John Paul II is supposed to be very good for this.

My arguement is this

Lets assume God is Real, I don't pretend to be able to argue with blind faith.

I don't pretend to aruge it's easy.

My question is this, IF you believe in Him, WHY would you want to?

GOD is an as$hole. He doesn't display any characteristics that I find virtuous. He is a vain, ego maniacal bully. Outside of what ever feel good sermons they give on Sunday, the bible is full of God advocating, if not out right participating in Murder, rape, slavery, and human sacrifice. All things generally consider pretty freaking evil by today's standards. But I guess it's OK if God says so right? :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but this regurgitation of the Dawkins/Hitchens malarkey is very one sided. That which is God is ineffable. The Old Testament had very disturbing stories, but they aren't condoning all of those actions. In fact, most Old Testament stories are examples of "What not to do." Life back then was harsh, society different. Men's understanding of God would also be different, harsher.

Lets take a look a JOB, a fairly common story. Because of Gods 'Pride' in the faith of job he consents to the Killing of relatively Innocent people such as his servants? and children. When Job asks for some justification for this, God comes down and says, because he can. He goes on and on about all He knows and all He can do, and pretty much just makes the argument of Might Makes Rights. God is all powerful, so he can do whatever he wants. That sounds like a bully to me. How about when he killed the first born children of Egypt were they not innocent, are your children innocent? :eek:

The story of Job is a complex one, and even I struggle with it. However, isn't it possible that the Biblical writers were writing to an audience that WOULD think God would kill others as punishment? Perhaps it is told from that perspective so that those hearing the story would know what it was to suffer as Job did.

Why would God condemn a good man to hell for not Worshiping Him. In other words why would God condemn a man to hell for not appealing to His vanity. If you are a good man, in that you have never committed a sin against another man. The first 4 commandments all appeal to Gods vanity so anyone who was not a believer is automatically a sinner, but the next 6, the ones people actually know...

Not all Christians believe all Non-Christians go to Hell. In fact, in Catholic theology we have what is called "Babtism by desire." The goodness and love of these men who either could not accept Christ or never heard is Gospel baptized them. Also, I wouldn't call it vanity. The Old Jews, you must understand, where not Monotheists. God tried to point them in the direction of what the Divine was, one single omnipotent being. To put any other God before him wouldn't be in the Jews best interest since it was they he chose to reveal himself through. The human soul, heart, and mind pointed out certain things that are true in all religion, (men partly understanding Logos) but God showed them what it all was. And he showed it fully in Christ, the manifested word.

1) I am the Lord your God
2) Thou shalt have no other gods before me, Thou shalt not make for yourself an idol
3) Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of your God
4) Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
...These ones...
5) Honor Thy Mother and Father
6) Thou shalt not murder
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery
8) Thou shalt not steal
9) Thou shalt not bear false witness
10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house.

Say he didn't break commandments 5 through 10. That man should spend eternity in hell? Any man who could be considered saintly by his peers by virtue of his deeds should spend eternity in Hell fire, for being Buddhist or whatever? I don't buy that, that's not any Justice I know of. And how is eternity in Hell a fit punishment for any sin of earth, life is short, eternity is forever.

As I said, not all Christians feel this way. In Catholic theology, Hell isn't punishment either. Heaven and Hell are defined as communion with God and seperation from God respectivly. The way one lives his life devleops his soul. If he is a man of love, then I would think he would be welcome into the arms of God (whom we define as Love in it's fullest) but that is for no one but God to say.

You see, heaven and hell aren't punishments or rewards, they are the result of our actions. One doesn't get a reward for showing up to work and doing his job, he gets paid. Payment is not a reward, but the natural benefit of his working. Now, he may go above and beyond and be awarded special recognition, but that doesn't work in this analogy. (Unless the award is like...beatification.)

SanHeChuan

06-02-2007, 11:21 PM

SaintSage

I know not all Christians are fundamentalist, and I appreciate those who are more "reasonable". But as you said they are growing.

Sill I'm ready to throw the baby out with the bath water, and the tub. The whole ideology in based on a very flawed book, that whole love thing is just the candy they hand out before indoctrinating you into evil. Were the crusades out of love, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials? They only love those willing to be like them, those they can control.

First of all, not all Christians share the same theology. Second, that "harvested" egg IS fertilized outside of the womb and then destroyed. I suggest you read up on different Christian perspectives on Sex and Natural law. It would help you at least understand where we come from. "Theology of the Body" by Pope John Paul II is supposed to be very good for this.

a cursory search did not find what I was looking for. How about a link? Specific to stem cell research.

I know it is fertilized, but that's still not a person to me. If they left it there in that petry dish would it grow into a person? The second the SCAT one is not fertilized.

I'm sorry, but this regurgitation of the Dawkins/Hitchens malarkey is very one sided.

I don't know who they are but at least I'm not alone. :confused:

That which is God is ineffable.

Then he should have figured out a better way to express himself, because the bible sucks. :eek:

The Old Testament had very disturbing stories, but they aren't condoning all of those actions. In fact, most Old Testament stories are examples of "What not to do." Life back then was harsh, society different. Men's understanding of God would also be different, harsher.

You can't pick and chose what you want to believe in. In the Bible God is condemned by His own words. If you don't believe those are the words of God then what good is the D@mn book! :rolleyes:

More from the convient to my agrument little site www.evilbible.com

1) Capital Punishment Crimes:

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Fortunetellers

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents

1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

SanHeChuan

06-02-2007, 11:23 PM

3. I have been reading up on this lately, it's extremely interesting, and would also coincide with other scientific theories that acknowledge additional incomprehensible dimensions. But it makes me wonder how strong the other dimensions would be to negate the gravitational effect each particle on earth has on eachother, and actually pull them apart! Very frightening to think about XD.

Are you taking about M theory dimensions or something else? :cool:

SaintSage

06-03-2007, 12:45 AM

SaintSage

I know not all Christians are fundamentalist, and I appreciate those who are more "reasonable". But as you said they are growing.

Sill I'm ready to throw the baby out with the bath water, and the tub. The whole ideology in based on a very flawed book, that whole love thing is just the candy they hand out before indoctrinating you into evil. Were the crusades out of love, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials? They only love those willing to be like them, those they can control.

Again, that is not the whole of the Body of Christ. Individuals get it wrong. People can be misguided. The Inquisition and the witch trials were about fear. Many within the Body of Christ love those who aren't Christian. I love you. I hope that you are happy and I don't want to control you. A big part of Catholic theology is Free Will. You can't force someone into handing his life over to Christ, it won't be a true conversion.

a cursory search did not find what I was looking for. How about a link? Specific to stem cell research.

I know it is fertilized, but that's still not a person to me. If they left it there in that petry dish would it grow into a person? The second the SCAT one is not fertilized.

If you give me some time, I may be able to find literature about it on the internet. The whole thing is tough to understand if you aren't well versed in theology of the body (the idea, not the book neccesarily) and I don't think I would do it justice trying to explain it right now.

I don't know who they are but at least I'm not alone. :confused:

My bad. It sounded almost word for word like those two. (They're famous athiest authors.)

Then he should have figured out a better way to express himself, because the bible sucks. :eek:

I don't think it sucks. I think the people who wrote it saw the world with their own perspective and sometimes that perspective is very difficult to understand and work around to get to the meaty core of the revealed God.

You can't pick and chose what you want to believe in. In the Bible God is condemned by His own words. If you don't believe those are the words of God then what good is the D@mn book! :rolleyes:

Forgive me, I was refering to certain stories of people like Abraham and some Kings who did things they should not have done, I wasn't refering to Law.

Those "evil" quotes are much better understood when we realize that the only laws God himself wrote were the Ten Commandments. The other laws were inspired. For example, I would venture to guess that God inspired the writer to understanding that at the time, influence of other religions wouldn't be beneficial, and unfortunatly, the author took that to mean they needed to be killed!

Ben Gash

06-03-2007, 02:28 AM

Are Christians getting more stupid? Not really, it's just the idiots are getting louder, and the internet and the explosion of TV channels gives them better platforms to be stupid. However, are the idiots really any more stupid than the hordes of people who currently found their ideas about Christianity on a novel?
As a point of historical accuracy I should point out that the first two Crusades were DEFENSIVE on the part of the europeans. The arabs attacked them and they retaliated. As these were the major crusades, and everything else that came after was tit for tat nonsense, probably not the best example.
As for the inquisition, where exactly in the Bible does it say "And ye shall torture Jews and anyone who thinks differently to you" ? People are people, and people do barbaricly stupid things, and will use any angle they can to push their own agenda. This happens wether people are Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, with numerous historical examples.
Stem Cell research is a VERY grey area, and it comes down to fundamental questions about what constitutes human life. It's difficult to argue that fertalised human embryos are not human life, but this would harm the entire field of embryology, so you end up back at the "cluster of cells" argument.
As for why are the idiots getting louder, Christians are becoming ghettoised on the internet. People complain about Christians affecting there freedoms, and then proceed to criticise every aspect of Christian life :rolleyes:

msg

06-03-2007, 02:41 AM

i say blame it all on bush .that piece of free masion trash sh,t

Shaolin Wookie

06-03-2007, 05:58 AM

The Problem of Evil in the Bible and in religion isn't that big of a problem.

The Problem of Inanity and Silliness is far worse.

Take for example, well, these examples:

Ezekiel 4:12-13 KJV

"And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them."
God actually tells the Jews to eat ****, and they do.....
Question: when your bread's baked with poo, does it rise?

Samuel 5:6 KJV

"But the hand of the LORD was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, even Ashdod and the coasts thereof. And when the men of Ashdod saw that it was so, they said, The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us: for his hand is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our god. They sent therefore and gathered all the lords of the Philistines unto them, and said, What shall we do with the ark of the God of Israel? And they answered, Let the ark of the God of Israel be carried about unto Gath. And they carried the ark of the God of Israel about thither. And it was so, that, after they had carried it about, the hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction: and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods in their secret parts."

That's right, mutha****a! Mess with God and he'll strike you with a scorching case of.....hemmoroids (the piles)? ****, that's some cold ****!

Malachi 2:3 KJV

"Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it."

Okay, surely God has had enough of his fecal fetishism......

II Chronicles 12:19 KJV

"And after all this the LORD smote him in his bowels with an incurable disease. And it came to pass, that in process of time, after the end of two years, his bowels fell out by reason of sickness: so he died of sore diseases. And his people made no burning for him, like the burning of his fathers."

Or not....

Deutoronomy 23:1-2 KJV

"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. A ******* shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."

Isn't it bad enough, that if you lose your *****, you've lost your *****?

I do find it very uncomfortable that the healthiness of my ***** determines just how much God likes me.

And how shall a child honor his father and mother (if he's a *******) if he's cut of from the nation because of his father or mother's misfortune of being born a *******?

God's a real ****er sometimes.

Shaolin Wookie

06-03-2007, 06:00 AM

Wow, with all that censorship, that last post looks gangsta....

Shaolin Wookie

06-03-2007, 06:06 AM

Way off topic

Three or four things that Are on my mind.

1) Everything Al Gore said was a lie. :mad: F_cking hippie drama queens :p

I saw yet another reference to this recently. Yes the earth is warming, at least in the northern hemisphere. In the southern hemisphere it's actually cooling down. The warming of the earth is a natural phenomena that we have no control of.

Of the trace green house gases CO2 is indeed currently the most abundant in our atmosphere. However this is through no fault of our own. Compared to natural production of green house gases by volcanoes, tree, forest fires, and evaporation of sea water, the CO2 we produce is but a drop in a very large bucket.

Water vapor in the atmosphere is way more abundant that CO2 and far more conducive to the green house effect. Hydrogen cars don't sound like such a good idea now, do they? :eek:

The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere happened after the earth started to heat up, not before. There is a lot of CO2 locked in the ocean, when that water evaporates as the earth heats up, naturally more CO2 would be released into the atmosphere. Forest fires are more common in a hot climate producing more CO2, and trees and veggies like the heat, crops yield more in a warm climate and produce more CO2.

We are just getting over the Little Ice Age which lasted from the 16Th to mid 19Th century. During the middle ages (800-1300AD) the earth was warmer than it is now.

The sun is producing more heat, as clearly demonstrated by the rise is temperature of other plants like Mars.

Ice makes heat. Large sheets of ice reflect light and heat back into the atmosphere. The earth warms up, the ice melts. The increase in moister causes increased cloud coverage which blocks the suns rays. The earth cools down. rinse repeat.

A scientific consensus my A$$! :rolleyes:

http://www.iceagenow.com/
http://www.stopdumbingdown.com/

I'm all for the environment, but many of the so called alternative fuels will likely be just as hazardous to the environment if not more so. We should be growing food not alternative cash crops for energy consumption.

Control through fear

I am going to have to disagree with you there. Do you live in a big city? Okay, if you do, drive about ten miles out to a point where you can see the skyline or the city at between three o'clock PM and 5 o' clock PM. Do you see that yellow haze that blankets the city?

Where do you think that stuff is going? Nowhere?

It disperses throughout the atmosphere. Okay, now imagine that's there, oh, I don't know, every day of the week for the past 20 years or more......

That's a hefty bit of pollution, man.

I'm not a die hard global warming guy, and I do understand the validity of every point you brought up, but they still don't negate the fact that our earth has a delicate balance of gases in the atmosphere that keeps us from becoming, say, Mars or Venus, and developed into the greenhouses effect---a balance we can help tip rapidly and irrevocably.

Don't believe me? Go stick your mouth on your car's tailpipe for about three minutes. If you give me a thumbs up sign and whatever vestige of a smile you can manage, I'll believe you.

WinterPalm

06-03-2007, 08:56 AM

There will always be sheep to get in line. Whether it be blindly following religion or science (scientism), they will accept what the authorities tell them and use that dogma as if they had thought of it themselves and are somehow privy to a special thing.
I don't think there is anything wrong with believing in religion or science, but quite often people do not understand how the stuff works and make very, very grandiose statements...such as truth claims which don't exist in science.

Shaolin Wookie

06-03-2007, 10:55 AM

Truth claims do exist in science.

Not Truth, as in spiritually reinforcing, blow-my-mind kind of truth.

But descriptions of things percieved, and their effects on other things, whose effects can be perceived, such claims of truth do exist.

WinterPalm

06-03-2007, 12:52 PM

Claims of probability are not the same as claims of truth. Science, in stepping away from religion, posits claims to probability and what will most likely occur, not the truth.
Bad science and the media make claims to the truth.

golden arhat

06-03-2007, 01:03 PM

Way off topic

Three or four things that Are on my mind.

1) Everything Al Gore said was a lie. :mad: F_cking hippie drama queens :p

I saw yet another reference to this recently. Yes the earth is warming, at least in the northern hemisphere. In the southern hemisphere it's actually cooling down. The warming of the earth is a natural phenomena that we have no control of.

Of the trace green house gases CO2 is indeed currently the most abundant in our atmosphere. However this is through no fault of our own. Compared to natural production of green house gases by volcanoes, tree, forest fires, and evaporation of sea water, the CO2 we produce is but a drop in a very large bucket.

Water vapor in the atmosphere is way more abundant that CO2 and far more conducive to the green house effect. Hydrogen cars don't sound like such a good idea now, do they? :eek:

The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere happened after the earth started to heat up, not before. There is a lot of CO2 locked in the ocean, when that water evaporates as the earth heats up, naturally more CO2 would be released into the atmosphere. Forest fires are more common in a hot climate producing more CO2, and trees and veggies like the heat, crops yield more in a warm climate and produce more CO2.

We are just getting over the Little Ice Age which lasted from the 16Th to mid 19Th century. During the middle ages (800-1300AD) the earth was warmer than it is now.

The sun is producing more heat, as clearly demonstrated by the rise is temperature of other plants like Mars.

Ice makes heat. Large sheets of ice reflect light and heat back into the atmosphere. The earth warms up, the ice melts. The increase in moister causes increased cloud coverage which blocks the suns rays. The earth cools down. rinse repeat.

A scientific consensus my A$$! :rolleyes:

http://www.iceagenow.com/
http://www.stopdumbingdown.com/

I'm all for the environment, but many of the so called alternative fuels will likely be just as hazardous to the environment if not more so. We should be growing food not alternative cash crops for energy consumption.

Control through fear

totally agree

in fact how much more rainforest would we have to cut down to make these bio crops ?

golden arhat

06-03-2007, 01:07 PM

2) Christianity the Cult of Evil

GOD is an as$hole. He doesn't display any characteristics that I find virtuous. He is a vain, ego maniacal bully. Outside of what ever feel good sermons they give on Sunday, the bible is full of God advocating, if not out right participating in Murder, rape, slavery, and human sacrifice. All things generally consider pretty freaking evil by today's standards. But I guess it's OK if God says so right? :rolleyes:

[/B]

true i agree
but god i think is an @ss hole only in most monotheistic senses

i see god (or whatever u want to call him) as a the only probable explanaition for the universes creation

but not in any kind of adam and eve type sense

golden arhat

06-03-2007, 01:22 PM

SaintSage

Then he should have figured out a better way to express himself, because the bible sucks.

he(not gender specific) expresses himself very well
he expresses himself

as you

as me

as everything

contradictory and complimentary

the creator and the expression

only your exptression of what god is is limited

what god is is unlimited

SanHeChuan

06-03-2007, 02:24 PM

golden arhat

I specifically talking about the God of the Old testament and the Religions that sprang from it.

If you take that away and just talk about a God as an Idea, I'm OK with that. I'm not denying the existence of God, just the truth of the Christan, Jewish, Islam perspective of God.

Shaolin Wookie

Truth claims do exist in science.

The Scientific community is currently willing to accept that they could be wrong about anything. Maybe not individually but collectively. I like that.

I do find it very uncomfortable that the healthiness of my ***** determines just how much God likes me.

What Jesus Loves the D!ckless :p

"For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12 ASV)

One of many many contrad!ckshions. ;)

Shaolin Wookie

06-03-2007, 03:10 PM

"For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. [B]He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12 ASV)

See? That's what I'm talking about. What's a sentence like that doing in a paragraph on a subject like this. Friggin' context, dude. It's just plain silly.

SanHeChuan

06-03-2007, 04:49 PM

Shaolin Wookie

I'm not a die hard global warming guy, and I do understand the validity of every point you brought up, but they still don't negate the fact that our earth has a delicate balance of gases in the atmosphere that keeps us from becoming, say, Mars or Venus, and developed into the greenhouses effect---a balance we can help tip rapidly and irrevocably.

The earth is not so fragile. Mars and Venus do NOT have oceans to absorb the excess C02. The complex organisms on earth are far more fragile. I believe that we are capable of destroying our selves, and many other large lifeforms with us, But we can't destroy all life on earth. IMO as long as there is life on earth then the earth is just as good as it ever was.

I am all for the responsible and judicious use of the environment for our own safety. But no matter what we do we WILL have an impact on our environment. Their are people out there who will always believe that any impact is a negative one, so we are screwed no matter what.

I don't think we should make a change just for the sake of change. Especially when the impact of human produced C02 is not as catastrophic as the people pushing for change would have us believe. The alternatives might not be as benign.

The problem is everyday people want to make a difference, and the only place they can see themselves reasonable making that difference is through automobiles. Cars being the most Iconic public image of our fossil fuel consumption.

They don't think about or care how much oil it took to make the batteries of their new electric car, or how much of the rain forest was cut down to grow ethanol crops in Brazil, or how many people in third world countries starved to death because their governments grew Biodiesel's instead of something people could eat. Most people don't think about these consequences, they just want change, they just want to win, to make a difference. They don't want to hear reason.

SanHeChuan

06-03-2007, 05:02 PM

Ben Gash

As a point of historical accuracy I should point out that the first two Crusades were DEFENSIVE on the part of the europeans. The arabs attacked them and they retaliated.

I will highly disagree with that. The Crusades were a solution to internal socioeconomic problems within Europe and fighting Islam was the outlet. And even if it was defensive it still doesn't explain all the many many Jews and Orthodox christains they killed along the way. Especially if their motive was the defensive of the byzantine empire, why kill the people you came to protect? :rolleyes:

People complain about Christians affecting there freedoms, and then proceed to criticise every aspect of Christian life :rolleyes:

When killing weeds you got to get the root. ;)

NJM

06-03-2007, 05:32 PM

Global warming is real and influenced by man to a point where it is already causing damage. Deal with it.

SanHeChuan

06-03-2007, 05:47 PM

Bwahahaha :rolleyes:

NJM

Global warming is real and influenced by man to a point where it is already causing damage. Deal with it.

It is real. The results are unknowable, some think it might lead to a new ice age.
Man influence is debatable.
It is causing Change.
It has been both hotter and cooler in Mans life time.
It is niether the end of the earth or us.
So what?

DPL

06-03-2007, 07:35 PM

1) Global warming is a religious argument. You either believe, don't believe, or choose not to participate. There are very compelling statistics that go both ways. The truth, like in all religious arguments, is that no one knows the truth.

2) Christian religious arguments are even more fruitless and frustrating than arguments about Shaolin-Do, or whether rich people should pay more taxes. :D

3) Expanding earth theory. Wow. First time I'd heard of this but he makes a pretty convincing case. He needs someone to edit his writing so he sounds a little less, well, religious about the whole thing, but it's a pretty convincing case. The continental drift theory has always seemed a bit buggy anyways...

YMC

06-03-2007, 10:19 PM

There are very compelling statistics that go both ways.

Where are the countervaling statistics that are so compelling? I don't mean what you'd find on the general internet, I mean in peer-reviewed journals. Although, to be fair, I'd doubt I'd be able to critically analyze the methods sections if I were to read them.

Actually, all this going back and forth about differing models etc kind of reminds me of something I do know about. Back in the dark ages of neuroscience, oh, a few decades ago, two groups argued back and forth about the mechanisms that underlied something called neuronal long term potentiation (LTP), which is believed, at least currently, to be how memories are formed. One group publishes one mechanism, another group publishes another; it's a real war, trust me, nothing like a bunch of know-it-alls fighting over who is right. And, it turns out they were both right. The two camps used different types of neurons. BUT, one group was more right than the other in the OVERALL picture because their mechanism is how 90% of the rest of brain generates LTPs. This isn't to say that the other mechanism isn't important.....

DPL

06-04-2007, 04:02 AM

Where are the countervaling statistics that are so compelling? I don't mean what you'd find on the general internet, I mean in peer-reviewed journals. Although, to be fair, I'd doubt I'd be able to critically analyze the methods sections if I were to read them.

Can you confirm that by 'countervaling statistics' you mean statistics that throw more support to a natural, cyclical warming theory as opposed to the man-caused, unnatural warming theory? I assume that's what you mean but you're not clear.

And since I'm not a professional scientist, I pretty much have no option except to present stats that have been released in more public forums after they've been published in peer review journals, seeing as how I don't subscribe to the peer review journals, so it looks like I'll automatically fail your test no matter what... :p

TaiChiBob

06-04-2007, 05:19 AM

SevenStar

06-04-2007, 08:25 AM

Ezekiel 4:12-13 KJV

"And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them."
God actually tells the Jews to eat ****, and they do.....
Question: when your bread's baked with poo, does it rise?

misinterpretation. This was a punishment - defling the food they ate. However, they were not EATING the dung, they were cooking with it - dung fueled the fire they cooked with. This was considered defiling the food.

However, it is no secret that God used very cruel punishments, from destroynig the world to having the firstborn killed. The moral of the story? Don't disobey.

TaiChiBob

06-04-2007, 08:39 AM

Greetings..

The moral of the story?
"the kingdom of God is within".. external values are contrived attempts to manipulate mankind.

Be well...

golden arhat

06-04-2007, 10:33 AM

Greetings..

Global Warming? whether it is as described or as criticized.. we can only improve our living conditions and our environment by addressing it as if it is very real..

thats the point tho
trying to make bio fuels and "save" the planet
would destroy everything that made it great

we have already chopped down the rainforest enough never mind what we would have to chop down for fuel crops

and as was said before what about all the ppl that would starve because their government decided to make fuel crops instead of eadible crops

:rolleyes:

golden arhat

06-04-2007, 10:53 AM

misinterpretation. This was a punishment - defling the food they ate. However, they were not EATING the dung, they were cooking with it - dung fueled the fire they cooked with. This was considered defiling the food.

However, it is no secret that God used very cruel punishments, from destroynig the world to having the firstborn killed. The moral of the story? Don't disobey.

moral of the story

pretend u werent listening when that sermon was read put

and deny it at all costs

RD'S Alias - 1A

06-04-2007, 11:22 AM

Isn't it written somewhere that Satan will conquer the earth by posing in the image of God? (Or some such thing of that sort)

Maybe the bible and all of the stories are really Satan brainwashing us into buying his evil ways?

All the instances of *God* killing, are really Satan, and he's pretending to be God, and there by blaming him and using God as a scapegoat...while at the same time spreading his message and silently converting us into his next army to be used in his next attempt to conquer heaven??

It's like he couldn't win the war, and got cast down to hell for his attempt, so now he's running Psyc ops in a Cold war?

SevenStar

06-04-2007, 12:01 PM

I REALLY doubt it - but that would make a great movie...However, you are probably speaking of the false prophet mentioned in the book of revelations. He is part of an unholy trinity - the beast, the dragon and the false prophet, as opposed to God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

TaiChiBob

06-04-2007, 12:07 PM

Greetings..

trying to make bio fuels and "save" the planet
would destroy everything that made it great
Please don't imply something i didn't say.. the intended message was: if we treat "global warming" as if it were real, and we used our collective resources to responsibly work to fix it we could only make things better.. You are assigning your personal issues to everyone that mentions global warming as a possibility.. there are too many credible reports by too many credible scientists to ignore.. but, hey.. live for today, let the future worry about our follies.. and, i won't use the "roll-eyes"..

Be well..

Golden Arms

06-04-2007, 12:32 PM

Agree 100% with what TCB just said. I honestly dont understand fully how you couldnt agree with that, but that is just one of the many strange things about being born human.

As a buddy of mine recently pointed out, its the nature of almost all living organisms to use up the resources of the planet, we are all viral in that respect. The difference is that we are the only ones with the "logical mind" and so with that greater power comes greater responsibility. Or so I currently perceive.

golden arhat

06-04-2007, 12:32 PM

well if treating global warming as if it were real (and i doubt it is man made as ppl say) then how they are treating the problem is through bio fuels then doesnt that mean that thats your idea of treating the "problem"

i will enjoy today
and i will let nature take its course

DPL

06-04-2007, 01:00 PM

the intended message was: if we treat "global warming" as if it were real, and we used our collective resources to responsibly work to fix it we could only make things better..

I don't take sides on the global warming issue, but I've got to call you on this logic. Only someone who believes global warming is definitely real and is the fault of mankind could write this and think it makes sense.

Let's say you've got some intestinal problems that your doctor THINKS might be due to bad nutrition but he doesn't do a complete battery of tests to examine all possibilities, and so he puts you on a multivitamin. But instead you've got prostate cancer and the multivitamin (per recent studies) speeds up the growth of the cancer and you die sooner. At that point wouldn't you sort of wish you hadn't acted like the malnutrition was real and that you hadn't treated it as if it was, before looking at all possibilities?

That's bad logic.

Look at the links offered in the first post on this thread, specifically the second link. Watch the powerpoint presentation on global warming. If you can get by the part where the guy talks about silicon breast implants, he makes very valid points that should be addressed. Particularly interesting section where he talks about 30 years ago we were thinking about melting the ice caps to combat global COOLING. :eek:

Al Gore made some good points as well. Compelling evidence on both sides.

The problem is, when you start believing what the consensus of scientists tells you, then you believe things like the earth is flat, and the sun revolves around the earth, and meteors cannot possibly fall from the sky, and dinosaurs were cold-blooded (no, warm! no, cold! no, warm!), and the atom is indivisible, and there are nine planets (no, eight! no, eleven! no, eight!) and that all experience can be objectively measured (unless you're Schrodinger's cat).

And now, you might even believe in continental drift...

Back to the religious argument... :)

SanHeChuan

06-04-2007, 01:00 PM

Tai Chi Bob

Please don't imply something i didn't say.. the intended message was: if we treat "global warming" as if it were real, and we used our collective resources to responsibly work to fix it we could only make things better.

What if it isn't a problem? As I've said, the earth has had both warmer and cooler periods during recorded history.

What if it can't be fixed? What if the solutions we come up with trying to fix a non-existent problem, or a misdiagnosed problem, brings greater disaster.

Like a bunch of old people dying in Europe during a heat wave because Air conditioning was more expensive/less available because refrigerants were banned.

Responsibility does not guaranty success. Although I'm all for responsibility in general. Better? Who gets to decide whats better for all. Greenland used to be farm-able, I'd say that was better for Greenland than the Ice that covers it now. There are benefits to global warming too. You can't stop change.

I think our grandchildren will be fine. The forefathers of this country did OK during the little Ice age. And our ancestors in Europe did OK during the Medieval warming period.

Bring down the Drama. Control the fear. :p

PangQuan

06-04-2007, 01:34 PM

1) I am the Lord your God
2) Thou shalt have no other gods before me, Thou shalt not make for yourself an idol
3) Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of your God
4) Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
...These ones...
5) Honor Thy Mother and Father
6) Thou shalt not murder
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery
8) Thou shalt not steal
9) Thou shalt not bear false witness
10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house.

the church has broken the 3rd commandment too many times to count....any church for that matter...

Sal Canzonieri

06-04-2007, 01:37 PM

Common sense tells you that you don't need the bible or any religion to believe in God.
Furthermore, you don't even need to believe in God, if God was real it would exist whether you believe in it or not.

In my opinion, God is the everything that exists in all places at all times.
If you think of the universe in that way, the universe is all things at all times in all places, God is just a name for that process.
To me that would mean that the universe is intelligent, and thus God/Universe is something you can experience, regardless of any believe or not.

And, since God/Universe is all things at all time in all places, then it is a positive ("loving") force/energy, because in to order to be hateful, the opposite of loving, something has to be separated from itself, which the Universe can not do, since it is always all things in all places at all times.

So this positive force is always there, you can ignore it or your experience it.

It has nothing to do with any made up by people stories or books like the Bible.
Clearly the god in the bible is not this loving force that is the universe, it is something that separates itself from parts of the universe, because it hates and kills and hurts things that are part of this universe, which the real God / Universe can not do.
The universe cannot be against itself or else it would cease being the whole universe: all things in all places at all times.

SanHeChuan

06-04-2007, 01:42 PM

RD

Isn't it written somewhere that Satan will conquer the earth by posing in the image of God? (Or some such thing of that sort)

Maybe the bible and all of the stories are really Satan brainwashing us into buying his evil ways?

All the instances of *God* killing, are really Satan, and he's pretending to be God, and there by blaming him and using God as a scapegoat...while at the same time spreading his message and silently converting us into his next army to be used in his next attempt to conquer heaven??

It's like he couldn't win the war, and got cast down to hell for his attempt, so now he's running Psyc ops in a Cold war?

Could be ;)

That is similar to the tenants of Gnosticism.

They believe that, the God who created the earth is evil.

The real gods were out in the ether doing their thing when this one god decided to create a new god by herself. Coupling was traditional, and apparently requisite, because the god she created was incomplete and Crazy. This Mad god went on the create the universe.

We have to see past the illusions of this Mad god to free ourselves from the material world.

:cool:

Sal

To be clear I'm not arguing against the existence of God. But otherwise good point.

SevenStar

06-04-2007, 02:18 PM

Common sense tells you that you don't need the bible or any religion to believe in God.
Furthermore, you don't even need to believe in God, if God was real it would exist whether you believe in it or not.

he doesn't care whether or not you believe in him' he merely gives you a choice - red or blue pill?

In my opinion, God is the everything that exists in all places at all times.
If you think of the universe in that way, the universe is all things at all times in all places, God is just a name for that process.

and that everything was created by something...

And, since God/Universe is all things at all time in all places, then it is a positive ("loving") force/energy, because in to order to be hateful, the opposite of loving, something has to be separated from itself, which the Universe can not do, since it is always all things in all places at all times.

and this positive energy is where while people are at war? just out there being ignored?

It has nothing to do with any made up by people stories or books like the Bible.
Clearly the god in the bible is not this loving force that is the universe, it is something that separates itself from parts of the universe, because it hates and kills and hurts things that are part of this universe, which the real God / Universe can not do.
The universe cannot be against itself or else it would cease being the whole universe: all things in all places at all times.

why is there an impression that a god must be loving? hell, even cultures with multiple gods have god of the underworld, god of war, etc.

PangQuan

06-04-2007, 03:00 PM

Shaolin Wookie

06-04-2007, 03:40 PM

Furthermore, you don't even need to believe in God, if God was real it would exist whether you believe in it or not.

But does God exist without other sentient beings? Without mundane sense perception, the world (if we take it on complemetary quantum physics) exists in a kind of probability wave function, whereby nothing is corporeal in a reasonable sense (reason being how humans make sense of the world). Elementary particles exist as waves and particles, but not both at the same time (in the measured, "sensed" (heard, seen, tasted, touched) environment). Until the time of measurement, the particle acts as if it is both things. But once a measurement takes place, it is only one. But how can we describe something that might exist as one thing, when without our measurement of the phenomenon, it cannot be said to exist objectively? God cannot exist unless he is sensed and measured. But since god is omnipotent, etc (all powerful, all knowing), all of which are attributes we cannot sense, see, or experience, we can only know pieces of God. We can know power, knowledge, etc, but never the ultimate predication of these things. Hence, we cannot know God. (As an example: imagine color without eyes. It does not exist. Wavelengths of light frequencies radiate color, so the wavelengths exist, but the colors do not exist without eyes. Now, you might say, well God exists, because we have knowledge of him. If I asked how, you'd say "spiritually." If I asked why we cannot use our 5 senses to gain that knowledge, you'd say they were defunct in the realm of God. So, we have spiritual knowledge of God? Well, what's the spirit, and how does it measure God? That's a tough one, and it involves gross assumption and presumption. In fact, there is no verifiable spiritual knowledge, for there is no evidence of it except deviations in logic, untenable and gross. God is not that wavelength we don't have eyes to see. If I were to ask how you have knowledge of spiritual knowledge--there's the kicker--you can't. If the 5 senses cannot sense God, they cannot sense the 6th, and you can't have knowledge of the 6th, much less of God's interaction with it. Conclusion: your 5 senses make up the sixth and God, as well.) In fact, having more knowlege at our hands, and more power at our hands, we move into a realm of reason where God is actually less and less reasonable. Science (greek for Knowledge) does not attempt to disprove God. But as our science (knowledge) grows, God becomes less necessary, until the point where we say he is unnecessary, and scrap him altogether.

When one of Napolean's chief physicists undertook a thorough explanation of the universe, beginning with the big bang, and ending without any mention of divinity throughout, Napoleon was furious. "How could you," asked he, "undertake the explanation of the creation of the universe without mentioning its maker even once?"

The guy (name escapes me) said: "I had no need of that hypothesis."

Things can be explained without God. Do I need to invoke God to explain, cogently, the origin of the universe, or the formation of this galaxy from a collapsing solar nebula, or the accretion of planet earth?

Nope. But people will impose God upon these things in order to add emotional content to things that happened by chance and universal laws of nature. God is unnecessary in this realm of thought. But he is emotionally reinforcing.

I submit: God does not exist if you do not believe in him. The new world did not exist to Europeans until they "discovered" it. Pluto did not exist until an astronomer "discovered" it.

You're next thought is: well, then, it's merely a defect in human reason and logic that we haven't "discovered" God yet, with sense perception and reasonable, irrefutable data. We've discovered and done other things that we didn't think we could do. True. But God is not like Pluto or the New World. God submits no direct experential reference to verify his existence, nor can he be verified conclusively. I think we all know the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and the Passion of the Christ don't really suffice. All of these verifications of God's existence were written by humans, and period only the passing of human intellects (not quite intellectual, no less) and the willful hopes and dreams of a select few, who summarily used their "spirituality" as a hegemenoic tool of power, granting themselves holiness, and holiness for their best friends.

God cannot be "discovered", because his nature will not allow him to be. Logically, he is defunct. Being all powerful and all knowing, and all powerless, and all ignorant, he's fallen into his own trap, and becomes a great and unparalleled ciper. A negation. An affirmation. A paradox. Logic cannot prove God. It never has. Emotions can prove god. They continue to do so at the peril of clear logic.

In my opinion, God is the everything that exists in all places at all times.
If you think of the universe in that way, the universe is all things at all times in all places, God is just a name for that process.
To me that would mean that the universe is intelligent, and thus God/Universe is something you can experience, regardless of any believe or not.

God is a pencil. God is an eraser, God is my *****,:eek:, God is your sister's vagina, God is your mother, God is your father, God is a platypus, God is a condor, God is blue, God is red, God is stupid, God is a genius, God exists, God does not exist.

Vicious cycle.

And, since God/Universe is all things at all time in all places, then it is a positive ("loving") force/energy, because in to order to be hateful, the opposite of loving, something has to be separated from itself, which the Universe can not do, since it is always all things in all places at all times.

What do you mean, separated from itself? When I hate, I'm still me. I am capable of hate. I am also capable of love. But the operative word is always "I".

How am I not myself?:confused:

(This is a very profound question)....

So this positive force is always there, you can ignore it or your experience it.

So is the negative force. You can ignore it or experience it. Consequently, only the positive side believes, disregarding the negative side. Detractors (atheists), and those who are nothing (myself), take both sides into consideration. They negate themselves, and leave a vacuum. Nothing has passed. There is nothing.

It has nothing to do with any made up by people stories or books like the Bible.

Culture plays a large role in the function of gods, and God. Animism gives life force to all things, rocks, trees, etc. This is not God. Some cultures had animism. Some have had the misfortune of Islam. Godlessness in one, godliness in the other. You might say the spirit of God was there to start with. They just interpreted it differently. Then where's the accounting for atheists?

I have always said, and still maintain: Salvation is just a matter of geography.

Clearly the god in the bible is not this loving force that is the universe, it is something that separates itself from parts of the universe, because it hates and kills and hurts things that are part of this universe, which the real God / Universe can not do.

The universe cannot be against itself or else it would cease being the whole universe: all things in all places at all times.

Strangely, there is a verly large school of thought in physics, in seeing how all galaxies move away from one another, yet the power of the universe to expand is slowing down, that the universe will collapse back into the singularity from which it sprang. The universe has no "itself". It does harbor some strange hairless apes that give it tangible existence, but it is not self aware, has no ideas as to how it should operate, and it does not fear becoming "nothing" again. We do, on the other hand. The operative word in that being "we."

Or "I" as it is.

Shaolin Wookie

06-04-2007, 03:55 PM

God can be affirmed, and he can be driven into non-existence. The existence of God, and the defense of that position, always operates on the presumtion that he does exist. He is not inferred from elementary particle physics, general relativity, newtonian physics, human evolution, biology, chemistry, sociology, or any other study of natural phenomena that reasons from the facts at hand. He is inferred only from theology, or from emotional longing and need.

I understand why people feel the need for God to exist. Believe me, I do. I still catch myself, every once and a while, when I'm in a ****ty situation, say to myself: "please God, help me with this or that, or give me the strength...." (18 years of devout religiosity die hard)......

It's a habit. It doesn't really mean anything. I was brainwashed to appeal to god in certain situations. Hence, when I am victorious in something, like a sparring match, I wouldn't say: "Now God, help me defeat Chuck Liddell." And if I beat Chuck, I don't say "Now help me beat Mike Tyson ten years ago." And if I beat Chuck, I don't invoke God to go back and rout Genghis Khan or the Nazis. Christian ethos keep you in subservience to God, for you appeal to him when you are weak, not when you are strong. And when you've displayed your strength, you show humility before God by thanking him and giving him credit for your victory.

It's all a game of psychology. Nothing new. Nietzsche beat us all to the punchlune about a hundred years ago.

Why does religion sponsor humility in victory, and confessions of weakness in adversity? Well, it keeps the strong in check, so they don't take the helm, prove that morality wrong, and destroy religion in general.

It's just a **** shame for religion that we had those English and French Revolutions.....:D

SevenStar

06-04-2007, 04:05 PM

We are always to be in subservience to him, whether strong or weak. The problem we as humans have is that we by choince don't appeal to him when we are strong. You admitted it yourself. When you are in a bad situation, you out of habit ask him for help. I have actually heard several sermons about getting people out of that mode, as it shouldn't be that way. The strong should feel as great a need for god as the weak do.

SanHeChuan

06-04-2007, 06:56 PM

I did not want this discussion to walk into the realm of whether or not God exists or Which god is the right one.

Assuming that God does exist and that this God is the Christan, Hebrew, Islam, etc, God. Is that God really one you would chose for yourself. Not that you'd get a choice.

I say it must not be, because they keep of changing what they think of God.

I said God is depicted in the bible as an evil *******, by today standards. Someone countered that the people of that time would have shared those evil tenancies so they would see their God that way.

Well who would have the better picture of God the People he inspired with his divine word, or the people 2000 years later?

Common sense (Maybe ;)) would say that the people closest to him 2000 years ago. So that must mean that God is an Evil *******, and that the Christians of today are just cherry picking the stories that portray God in the light they want to see him in. Buddy Jesus.

Shaolin Wookie

It's just a **** shame for religion that we had those English and French Revolutions.....:D

Now your mixing two subjects. A big part of the French Revolution was that there was no food. This was because of bad weather. The weather was bad because it was unusually cold, i.e. the little ice age. :eek:

Shaolin Wookie

06-04-2007, 08:19 PM

I don't care what the reason was, the net effect of both revolutions was the massive destabilization of the church's grip on politics.

SanHeChuan

06-04-2007, 08:25 PM

You almost say that like it was bad thing :D

Shaolin Wookie

06-04-2007, 08:37 PM

Religion is a phenomenon of the past. In today's (at least in America) "enlightened society", were men are born equal and free, and everyone has an equal opportunity to gain political, social, and financial status if he puts in the work (ideally, at least), it's very hard to envision why anyone could believe in a God of the Old Testament, who scourges every nation but Israel, and occasionally makes them eat their own ****, or cook their food with their own ****--either way, I bet it tasted like ****.

But remember, Yahweh was the god of the Jews, and nobody else. They didn't proseltyze or convert others. They drove them away, killed them, and deported them. There wasn't assimilation to Jewish standards. Most people despised them. To the Jews, and all the Old Testament scholars (and some New Testament ones as well), God was the representative of Israel. Therefore, God smiting other nations was not something evil. It was just favoritism in a land where Jews just weren't that welcome. He had one people, and one people only. The Hebrews. Therefore, the Old Testament god makes sense, in a social experiment kind of way. It gives uneducated ex-slaves who wander around, starve, wander some more, starve, wander some more, get raped and pillaged, wander around even more than any of the hobbits in the lord of the rings....which is a lot of ground to cover....---well, it gives them something grandoise to envision--cosmic Israel, with an all-powerful father figure constantly watching and judging them by their actions, willing them to be the most powerful nation in the middle east.

In other generations, God was stripped of his national identity. With the new gospels of Christ, God became the representative of not only humanity, but of the entire universe as well, because now Gentiles had a marked interest in the Christian offshoot of the Jewish religion.

It was easy to justify the Inquisition, Crusades, and countless heretic scavengings of the first 1600 years and more of the church. All of humanity was subject to God's laws, and all other gods were false. It wasn't one god to each nation. It was one true god above all other false gods. What did they back their religion up with? Truth? Convincing arguments? Nope. Just disease, much more technological means to warfare, and the right of might.

Even more broadening was the scope of Zionistic mythos. God revealed a plan: convert everyone, establish a Jewish state, beat Satan on level 9--really, he turned the world into a video game.

In less "enlightened" nations (I do think America is incredibly englightened, not so much as France, but very much so), such as, say, Iraq, the local deity still has a very nationalistic identity. The war going on right now isn't really that far from the Crusades. Only, we're no longer a Christian world. Christendom is dead, and the church, thanks to our forefathers and Enlightenment devotees, is crippled by law.

Evil, god, and tolerance of these issues.....they're all contextual.

For instance: I think many horrible things happened during the American Revolution. The hatred harbored on both sides led to many disgusting atrocities.

However, if I were a poor colonist, and some fat king on a distant isle somewhere far across the Atlantic decided to station a proud, arrogant British soldier in my home, to eat my food, which costs me a pretty penny, who starts making eyes at my daughter over the dinner table, and I catch him trying to rape her during the night--and I'm powerless to prosecute the *******, and killing him will leave me dead, and my family shunned and poor.....

You had better bet I'd be willing to do some questionable things in the name of "morality" and the betterment of society. Hell, I might not even think them questionable.

To me, today, I find that admission abominable. Nevertheless, if I look honestly at the situation, I can see how people do horrible things. To someone in my shoes, today, it doesn't make sense. But if I'm not wearing my Nike's, and I don't have the trappings of modern American convenience (I live well, and I'm bottom rung middle class, if even that)......things change quite a lot.

SanHeChuan

06-04-2007, 08:46 PM

I do think America is incredibly englightened, not so much as France, but very much so

OK you totally lost me right there :D

So in general your saying that the end justifies the means and that morality is contextual. :eek:

Scott R. Brown

06-05-2007, 04:27 AM

Hi Shaolin Wookie,

But does God exist without other sentient beings?

There is no requirement for there to be other sentient beings in order for God to exist. All that is required is for God to be sentient of himself. Once God/Tao is self-aware, existence IS! The Judeo-Christian name for God, “Yahweh” means “I am that I am”, or “I am BECAUSE I am”, these are various manners of expressing his/its essential condition of being as the “self-existent one”! There are those who propose that existence is nothing more than God playing with himself. If all things are God/Tao then in actuality this is what occurs. However, this perspective creates a problem for “strictly” rationally oriented thinkers because they perceive phenomena in terms of Cause and Effect, that is, one thing comes from another in a continuous linear progression. If we have not trained our mind to perceive in a non-linear fashion we cannot conceive of a phenomenon without a linear cause.

Elementary particles exist as waves and particles, but not both at the same time (in the measured, "sensed" (heard, seen, tasted, touched) environment). Until the time of measurement, the particle acts as if it is both things. But once a measurement takes place, it is only one. But how can we describe something that might exist as one thing, when without our measurement of the phenomenon, it cannot be said to exist objectively? God cannot exist unless he is sensed and measured.

It is possible this inability to measure both at the same time occurs due to limitations in our measuring devices or due to limitations in how we are conditioned to perceive. It is not necessarily a condition of the phenomenon.

At any rate, to say the phenomenon does not exist unless WE (humans) are able to measure it is not quite accurate. The only requirement for something to exist is that there is a sentience of the phenomenon. If Tao/God is sentient and this sentience perceives the phenomenon then it exists regardless of whether humans perceive it or not.

From another perspective, just because something is not perceived/measured does not mean it will not affect humans. Humans could not perceive/measure x-rays, gamma rays, or other unknown phenomena at one time, but these phenomena certainly affect humans. It could be said that the affect these energies have upon humans IS a form of measurement, regardless of whether the affect is perceived or not. Since this is the case God/Tao may also exist regardless of man’s ability to perceive/measure God/Tao. All that would be required is for God/Tao to affect humans, not for humans to perceive the affect.

Therefore it is incorrect to say that God/Tao does not exist if man cannot measure Him/It!

But since god is omnipotent, etc (all powerful, all knowing), all of which are attributes we cannot sense, see, or experience, we can only know pieces of God. We can know power, knowledge, etc, but never the ultimate predication of these things. Hence, we cannot know God.

Your conclusion is here is also inaccurate. At best you may only say that YOU cannot sense, see or experience God/Tao. It is an assumption that it is impossible to know the “ultimate predication of things”, and a false assumption at that. Because you cannot and you know of no one else that can, does not mean it cannot or hasn’t been done. In fact God/Tao CAN be known and the experience has been recorded by many individuals.

As I have written elsewhere, the descriptions by these individuals of God/Tao vary due to the manner in which the experience/knowledge of God/Tao is apprehended by the mind and the ability of the individual to express themselves. Direct experience of God/Tao occurs when the mind is in a non-discursive condition; this is where the misunderstanding of those with a strictly scientific manner of observing phenomena occurs. Humans are conditioned from birth to perceive in a linear, discursive manner. Scientists have further training/conditioning that convinces them that discursive thinking is the ONLY possible way to accurately describe/experience phenomena. This is thinking with blinders on.

We tend to not explore that which we believe to be beyond reason or that which we consider unreasonable, forgetting or not understanding that there is a manner of perceiving that exists prior to discursive thinking. This “condition of mind/ state of mind” occurs beyond, above and/or before discursive thought, so to speak, and it takes practice/re-conditioning to perceive in this manner. Ch’an and Taoist teachings state this manner of perceiving is our inherent condition of mind and that our minds are conditioned by circumstances to perceive in a much narrow manner. The consequence of this is we no longer are able to perceive clearly, that is, we perceive with preconceived notions. These preconceived notions filter reality/experience for us and therefore we only perceive what we want to or expect to perceive and not what is actually occurring.

We are conditioned from birth to perceive in a discursive manner. Experience/Knowledge of God/Tao is a direct experience and not something easily communicated in a linear manner. Direct experience cannot be accurately communicated in such a manner as to GIVE the audience the experience; the audience must have had the experience in order to comprehensively understand the description of the experience. So, when I describe my feeling of happiness, happiness must be an experience the audience is familiar with in order for them understand of my meaning. Further, the audience’s understanding of my description happiness is NOT happiness itself, only an understanding of my representation of happiness. True knowledge of happiness is found in the direct experience of happiness itself, NOT in the description. In like kind, the KNOWING we obtain of God/Tao occurs in the experience itself.

Now, you might say, well God exists, because we have knowledge of him.

This is a misunderstanding of God/Tao; God/Tao exists because he has knowledge/sentience or himself! Others are NOT a necessity!

So, we have spiritual knowledge of God? Well, what's the spirit, and how does it measure God? That's a tough one, and it involves gross assumption and presumption. In fact, there is no verifiable spiritual knowledge, for there is no evidence of it except deviations in logic, untenable and gross. God is not that wavelength we don't have eyes to see. If I were to ask how you have knowledge of spiritual knowledge--there's the kicker--you can't.

It is your conclusion that “involves gross assumption and presumption”. This is because you have not made a comprehensive study of the subject. Once again, as I have written elsewhere, spiritual knowledge does fall within the observational purview of science. The observations of those mystically inclined do indicate repeatable experiences according to specific contexts. Variations in many descriptions may be attributed to the difficulty in communicating non-discursive experiences in a discursive manner as well as individual variations in intelligence, historical era, cultural differences and ability to communicate.

As an example, consider the variations that would occur when a number of individuals attempt to describe the same painting or the taste of an orange. Each description will be limited by these variables. The ability to describe the experience of God/Tao is determined by these very same factors. With each of these experiences, the experience of a painting or the taste of an orange, the description is NOT comparable to the direct experience itself. The description is NOT the thing itself! This is where the scientific mind becomes confused and hence makes ridiculous statements about topics they are not educated to comment upon. It is like a scientist who claims an orange has no taste, yet refuses to taste one for himself, because then he cannot be objective about it! The knowledge of the taste of an orange occurs when the orange is actually tasted, until then all the scientist may do is record the claims of those who have tasted an orange. Perhaps one may claim, well an orange may be held and measured physically and therefore can be said to exist. I would respond, take an actual measurable orange away from the example. Let us postulate a group of people who have tasted an orange, but do not actually have one in their possession. The fact they cannot produce one for the scientist to measure does not demonstrate they have not tasted one. One of these individuals may say to the scientist, “Well go here and do this and you will find an orange to taste.” If the scientist refuses to “go here and do this” in order to taste an orange, it would be inappropriate for him to state that oranges do not exist and they have no taste, since he refused to make the effort to have the experience for himself! His conclusion concerning oranges then, are made from an ignorance of the subject.

Scott R. Brown

06-05-2007, 04:44 AM

Things can be explained without God. Do I need to invoke God to explain, cogently, the origin of the universe, or the formation of this galaxy from a collapsing solar nebula, or the accretion of planet earth?

This is a common claim of scientists, and is not quite accurate in the conclusion it wants to imply. Science is in the business of measuring/describing phenomena that occur in the material universe in order to predict future occurrences, that is all! Science may describe what occurs and the manner in which is occurs, but why it occurs one way instead of some other way or why it occurs at all is beyond the ability of science.

From the scientific perspective the questions of how and why phenomena occur may only be addressed in the mechanical, “cause and effect” sense and not the philosophical sense. Science cannot explain how or why the “big bang” occurred. This is because, so far, they cannot measure what occurs beyond/above/outside the system. The how and why that science can explain falls within the rules of the material system and cannot address the how or why that occurs beyond measurable phenomena. Why does gravity exist instead of some other phenomenon? Why does light exist in the manner it does instead of in some other manner? The answers from a scientific perspective might be something like, “Because that is the nature of the universe” or “They occur according the laws of physics”. Well the point of the question is, “why are the laws of physics the way they are instead of some other way?” This cannot be answered by science and the answers they provide are non-sense because they do not answer the question. Science uses products/effects of the system to explain the system itself creating a circular argument. An appropriate and more accurate answer would be, “We don’t know how or why?” An even more accurate answer to the question is, “The laws of physics exist because they exist!” This is somewhat similar to “I Am that I Am, I Am BECAUSE I Am”, Hmmmm? Makes one think doesn’t it?

But people will impose God upon these things in order to add emotional content to things that happened by chance and universal laws of nature. God is unnecessary in this realm of thought. But he is emotionally reinforcing.

This does occur, but it is not an argument that God/Tao does not exist, only that there appears to be an inherent emotional need and/or impetus found in humans towards a belief in God.

I submit: God does not exist if you do not believe in him. The new world did not exist to Europeans until they "discovered" it. Pluto did not exist until an astronomer "discovered" it.

The fact that Europeans were not able perceive the New World or its affects does not mean it did not exist, the same with Pluto and any other unknown phenomenon. I refer you to my above argument that God’s/Tao’s existence is not dependent upon other sentient beings perceiving him, only on him perceiving himself. If God/Tao exists then he affects humans whether we perceive his affect or not. Our inability to perceive him or his affects does not argue for his non-existence, just as our inability to perceive x-rays or their affects does not demonstrate they do not exist. The limitation is found within us, not in the unperceived phenomenon.

God submits no direct experiential reference to verify his existence, nor can he be verified conclusively.

This is incorrect and I have demonstrated why above.

I think we all know the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and the Passion of the Christ don't really suffice. All of these verifications of God's existence were written by humans, and period only the passing of human intellects (not quite intellectual, no less) and the willful hopes and dreams of a select few, who summarily used their "spirituality" as a hegemonic tool of power, granting themselves holiness, and holiness for their best friends.

That this occurs cannot be denied, but it is inaccurate to assume this is an argument that demonstrates God/Tao does not exist. Instead it merely demonstrates the limitations and errors of mankind!

God cannot be "discovered", because his nature will not allow him to be. Logically, he is defunct. Being all powerful and all knowing, and all powerless, and all ignorant, he's fallen into his own trap, and becomes a great and unparalleled ciper. A negation. An affirmation. A paradox. Logic cannot prove God. It never has. Emotions can prove god. They continue to do so at the peril of clear logic.

This is true only for those who are not able to perceive beyond their conditioned perception of phenomena. Above I have made a comprehensive argument demonstrating this view as erroneous. While it “may” be true that God/Tao cannot be logically demonstrated, it cannot be said that he can only be proven emotionally. Direct experience, without the filter of preconceived notions, is NOT a function of the emotions, but a function of an unfettered mind. All discursive views and preconceptions belong to a mind conditioned to perceive according to an artifically contrived and arbitrary set of standards. To perceive God/Tao directly one must learn to transcend conceptual thought and perceive directly.

That is enough for now, I am running out of time. Thank you for the thought stimulating comments!:)

TaiChiBob

06-05-2007, 05:56 AM

Greetings..

"God" is a "word" that carries way too much religious and social baggage.. it is a "word" that describes a particular human perception, a "sense" that we are parts of a greater Whole, that "sense" we refer to as Spiritual Awareness.. The Greater Whole has been described bt different cultural beliefs as "God", Allah, Tao, Great Spirit, etc.. regardless of the description, there is a common "experience".. it is that "experience" of the Divine that we attempt to describe, but which is beyond description.. so, we rely on our cultural analogies to make sense of the experience and to communicate with our peers.. the clash of "interpretations" is the issue, not the existence of the Divine..

Some people challenge the notion of infallible and all-powerful and other such attributes.. in its wisdom, the Divine merely set things in motion.. and allows its "parts" to determine the direction and quality of that motion.. it doesn't meddle or intervene, its wisdom gave that choice to its parts as well.. so, the challenge is not to the Divine, it is to our mis-handling of the Gift of Life..

Be well..

SevenStar

06-05-2007, 07:52 AM

Common sense (Maybe ;)) would say that the people closest to him 2000 years ago. So that must mean that God is an Evil *******, and that the Christians of today are just cherry picking the stories that portray God in the light they want to see him in. Buddy Jesus.

No, they wouldn't. that is why God is feared by christians. yes, He is salvation, but he is also known to take wrath on those that disobey him.

AJM

06-05-2007, 08:03 AM

Shaolin Wookie

06-05-2007, 12:48 PM

OK you totally lost me right there :D

So in general your saying that the end justifies the means and that morality is contextual. :eek:

Naw, I wouldn't say that. I think there is a kind of objective morality humans are prone to follow and gravitate towards, based on their biological standards, and their classification as omnivores. Sounds wierd, I know.

I'll just point to Karl Popper and say, read him.

SanHeChuan

06-05-2007, 01:16 PM

Sevenstar

No, they wouldn't. that is why God is feared by christians. yes, He is salvation, but he is also known to take wrath on those that disobey him.

God doesn't just take his wrath out of those who disobey him, he also F_cks up the innocents around the dude.

Very mafia, he comes after your family, and your neighbors too. :confused:

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. 17 None of those condemned things shall be found in your hands, so that the LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, 18 because you obey the LORD your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.
Deuteronomy 13:13-19

[B]Kill Sons of Sinners
Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.
Isaiah 14:21

God Kills all the First Born of Egypt
And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

God Will Kill the Children of Sinners
If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

And your OK with that? :eek:

Shaolin Wookie

06-05-2007, 01:23 PM

Hi Shaolin Wookie,

There is no requirement for there to be other sentient beings in order for God to exist. All that is required is for God to be sentient of himself.

If we have not trained our mind to perceive in a non-linear fashion we cannot conceive of a phenomenon without a linear cause.

HAHA....there's a reason our minds to perceive things in linear fashions concerning cause and effect, dude.

It goes the way with this world that causes beget effects.

I think we can consider that case closed.:D

I still think the Hebrews got it wrong, syntactically, and it's Am I?

And, in order for "I" or self-identity to function or even exist, there must exist a separation between the operative and the operation.

It is possible this inability to measure both at the same time occurs due to limitations in our measuring devices or due to limitations in how we are conditioned to perceive. It is not necessarily a condition of the phenomenon.

At any rate, to say the phenomenon does not exist unless WE (humans) are able to measure it is not quite accurate. The only requirement for something to exist is that there is a sentience of the phenomenon. If Tao/God is sentient and this sentience perceives the phenomenon then it exists regardless of whether humans perceive it or not.

From another perspective, just because something is not perceived/measured does not mean it will not affect humans. Humans could not perceive/measure x-rays, gamma rays, or other unknown phenomena at one time, but these phenomena certainly affect humans.

Therefore it is incorrect to say that God/Tao does not exist if man cannot measure Him/It!

Not quite. See, X-rays are there, we only need the technology to measure them. God does not submit to these criterion, for he is immaterial (hence, incomprehensible and immeasurable). Are you suggesting we just need a God Detector?:D

Your conclusion is here is also inaccurate. At best you may only say that YOU cannot sense, see or experience God/Tao. It is an assumption that it is impossible to know the “ultimate predication of things”, and a false assumption at that. Because you cannot and you know of no one else that can, does not mean it cannot or hasn’t been done. In fact God/Tao CAN be known and the experience has been recorded by many individuals.

Individuals with preconceived notions of how god functions, who believe in spirituality, and can provide absolutely no evidence to corroborate what they feel (it's just an emotion). There was a chick in college who stalked me for 3 years, was bipolar, and when she wasn't taking her meds, thought she was a druid priestess. Whenever I hear of these individual, direct experiences of god, I automatically think UFO abductions, bipolarism, and paranoid schizophrenia. Sounds rough, I know. But many prominent religious leaders were epileptic, paranoid schizos (think Paul, or perhaps Caesar [he trained to be a high priest as a youth]).

As I have written elsewhere, the descriptions by these individuals of God/Tao vary due to the manner in which the experience/knowledge of God/Tao is apprehended by the mind and the ability of the individual to express themselves. .

Actually, linear thining is natural. It helps the young mind make sense of the world. It isn't conditioning. As a matter of fact, religious conditioning vies against this progression, and "trains the mind to think in a non-linear fashion" as you suggested earlier. In other words, religion trains you to think unnaturally.

That last statement I consider true beyond all contradictiuon.

We tend to not explore that which we believe to be beyond reason or that which we consider unreasonable, forgetting or not understanding that there is a manner of perceiving that exists prior to discursive thinking. The consequence of this is we no longer are able to perceive clearly, that is, we perceive with preconceived notions. These preconceived notions filter reality/experience for us and therefore we only perceive what we want to or expect to perceive and not what is actually occurring.

I think this statement is ridiculous. (I hope you don't think I'm being disdainful. This is an argument, and I'm not going to waste words, so it might sound abusive):). According to this thesis, General and special relativity would never have arisen. People constantly question the existence of things, and their non-existence. Consider the technological revolution of the past century. The world does not even look like a former shade of itself anymore. Seventeenth century time-travellers would never recognize New York City....

I do agree with that last part. But it's part of being a living creature. You select to remember, and choose to observe what is germane to you. (Natural selection wouldn't favor the transcendental poet. He'd get eaten by every predator on earth). Everything else is dross. But I don't think this has any place in this argument.

We are conditioned from birth to perceive in a discursive manner. Experience/Knowledge of God/Tao is a direct experience and not something easily communicated in a linear manner. In like kind, the KNOWING we obtain of God/Tao occurs in the experience itself.

I don't like this line of thinking. I never have. You question the gamut of experience/perception based on what experience/perception has given you first, in order for you to question its validity. This is like the skeptic's credo. Fun to read. But logically untenable.

This is a misunderstanding of God/Tao; God/Tao exists because he has knowledge/sentience or himself! Others are NOT a necessity!

They are. If I'm born alone in a black cave, fed through some kind of nanotechnological feeding device (don't ask), and have a sense perception inhibitor of another nanotechnological sort, and am never able to feel, touch, taste, smell, see, or hear anything outside of myself, or even of myself, I will never develop any kind of identity. For all I know I could be running through a forest, hitting every tree on the way there, but I'll never know it. I have no input. Hence, there is no development.

This is pretty demonstrative of the tyranny of cause and effect.

It is your conclusion that “involves gross assumption and presumption”. This is because you have not made a comprehensive study of the subject. Once again, as I have written elsewhere, spiritual knowledge does fall within the observational purview of science. The observations of those mystically inclined do indicate repeatable experiences according to specific contexts. Variations in many descriptions may be attributed to the difficulty in communicating non-discursive experiences in a discursive manner as well as individual variations in intelligence, historical era, cultural differences and ability to communicate.

As an example, consider the variations that would occur when a number of individuals attempt to describe the same painting or the taste of an orange. Each description will be limited by these variables. The ability to describe the experience of God/Tao is determined by these very same factors. With each of these experiences, the experience of a painting or the taste of an orange, the description is NOT comparable to the direct experience itself. The description is NOT the thing itself! This is where the scientific mind becomes confused and hence makes ridiculous statements about topics they are not educated to comment upon. It is like a scientist who claims an orange has no taste, yet refuses to taste one for himself, because then he cannot be objective about it! The knowledge of the taste of an orange occurs when the orange is actually tasted, until then all the scientist may do is record the claims of those who have tasted an orange. Perhaps one may claim, well an orange may be held and measured physically and therefore can be said to exist. I would respond, take an actual measurable orange away from the example. Let us postulate a group of people who have tasted an orange, but do not actually have one in their possession. The fact they cannot produce one for the scientist to measure does not demonstrate they have not tasted one. One of these individuals may say to the scientist, “Well go here and do this and you will find an orange to taste.” If the scientist refuses to “go here and do this” in order to taste an orange, it would be inappropriate for him to state that oranges do not exist and they have no taste, since he refused to make the effort to have the experience for himself! His conclusion concerning oranges then, are made from an ignorance of the subject.

I love how if you take a strong stance against religion and spirituality, and don't curb your distaste for it, people will very quickly say: "Well, only if you made a serious study of the subject."

Well, ****, I've studied it almost 20 years (first five years don't really count, except as brainwashing), half-in, half-out, and never half-assed. My greatest gripe with religion is that 99% of the people who profess it, or profess to disbelieve in it, display 5% sincerity on the topic. That goes for many of the people on this board. Hopefully, I figure if I stir up enough ****, someone might acutally begin to exercise their brain cells. that's why I love to argue this subject, and why many people hate to do so. (Not talking about you, SB).:)

Do you wonder why I keep arguing with you guys?

I love discussing this topic. I may not be a believer. But I am sincere in my interest and research into it.

Please don't make that mistake again.

WinterPalm

06-05-2007, 01:51 PM

Greetings..

Global Warming? whether it is as described or as criticized.. we can only improve our living conditions and our environment by addressing it as if it is very real..

Those that choose to do nothing, assumimg global warming to be a conspiracy, are gambling with their children's future.. forget the arguement of "real or not", just work to improve the only planet we have.. time spent arguing and criticizing is better spent doing something beneficial..

Be well..

That is exactly it! It doesn't matter if we are doing it or not...the issue is that we are polluting and destroying, less gas consumption and related pollution will only be a good thing. Less toxic waste into the oceans will be a good thing. Doesn't matter if you are conservative, liberal, religious, scientific, or a hippie, life will be better with less pollution!

SanHeChuan

06-05-2007, 01:56 PM

WinterPalm

life will be better with less pollution!

Can't agrue with that! :D

But are there really any current alternatives that will have less impact on the environment, or are we jumping the gun, because we are too scared not to make a change.

SunBeam

06-05-2007, 03:35 PM

DUDE!!! Can't believe all the anti-christian posting!:confused:. Well, I could not address all the points presented against "God" religion, it would take too long but I must state that you may not be looking at some of the stories in the Old Test, the way that they are meant to but looked at.

God is Holy (set apart)
He reveals himself to man, man does not seek him
He is self existing (Elohim) or (I Am, That I Am)
He does not need us, we need him
Man often gives lip service to following Him but it's serious business.

...and although there are a lot of "Harshness" and punishment handed out,
there is also mercy and grace even in the Old Test for those willing to take it.

I could write a long, long, long break down of all of this (I did a study on the so called mean God, nice God of Old and New Test) but I think I'll chill on this

check out REASONS.ORG nice science for those interested. :)

SanHeChuan

06-05-2007, 05:48 PM

So because God is nice some times, that makes up for all the horrible things He did.

That's like a battered wife who says, but I know he Loves me. :rolleyes:

kwaichang

06-05-2007, 06:16 PM

SanHeChuan

06-05-2007, 06:27 PM

Oh OK so it's the MASTER PLAN that makes killing children OK, or was the killing of the first born Children of Egypt mans doing. :rolleyes:

The word of God is corrupted and in all of your so called "LOGIC" condemn the god for the acts of man.

Are you saying that the bible is corrupted? If so then why base your religion on it? :o

MA teacher teaches you if you question his method you will learn but not as well as you could or should. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

IF you don't question then you don't learn. You maybe able to regurgitate what your told, but to apply it you have to understand it and to understand it you have to question. People who never question are the stupidest kind of people. :mad:

There is evil in in the world even with out God or Christianity.

I never said it was the source of evil or the only evil, but does one evil lesson another? :eek:

Scott R. Brown

06-05-2007, 06:28 PM

Hi Shaolin Wookie,

there's a reason our minds to perceive things in linear fashions concerning cause and effect, dude. It goes the way with this world that causes beget effects.

The material world functions according to cause and effect. That does not demonstrate against the ability of mind to function in a non-linear/non-discursive manner. Non-discursive thought must be learned. If an individual does not make the effort to learn this manner of thinking they are in no position to be critical of it. It is no different than criticizing those who have had the direct experience of eating oranges without ever eating one yourself.

…in order for "I" or self-identity to function or even exist, there must exist a separation between the operative and the operation.

There is no requirement for self-awareness to create a separate “I” in order to being to occur. The “I” we experience as ourselves is an illusion of the discursive mind. One way of illustrating this is to consider who you think you are this moment, the “I” you consider yourself to be. This “I” is different from the “I” you considered yourself to be 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago. To be sure there is a continuity of identity, but this continuity occurs as a process of the discursive mind as it gradually changes over time. If you were to suddenly jump from the “I” you considered yourself to be when you were 10 years of age to the “I” you consider yourself to be today, you would find yourself confused as to your identity. Your 10 year old “I” would not recognize itself as the same being if it suddenly jumped to age 40 or 50 years old. This is because there is no continuity of “I” even if the “I” belongs to the same being. Your older “I” could only make the adjustment of a sudden jump because of its memory of the 10 year old “I”. If there was no memory of the 10 year old “I” the older “I” would not experience a continuity of identity and would not consider the 10 year old “I” the same being. Who we think we are is an illusion, an artificial construct used to interact with the material world, but it is not our inherent being. It is similar to an actor playing a role in a film. For a temporary period the actor “pretends” to be another identity while always retaining his original being.

The purpose of Ch’an and other systems of thought is to work towards the realization that operative and operation are merely different aspects of the same non-dual condition of being. Duality is an artificial construct which serves a purpose, but it is not the essence of being. The inherent non-duality of duality may be illustrated by Yin-Yang. Yin-Yang may be viewed from the perspective of duality, Yin AND Yang, operative AND operation, or it may be viewed from the non-dual perspective as Yin-Yang. Within Yin-Yang the quality of Yin and the quality of Yang are inherently the same principle. Each principle occurs or is experienced as Yin or Yang according to the perspective of mind, NOT as an inherent quality of the principle. Yin IS Yang and Yang IS Yin.

…X-rays are there, we only need the technology to measure them. God does not submit to these criterion, for he is immaterial (hence, incomprehensible and immeasurable). Are you suggesting we just need a God Detector?

You presume God/Tao is not there because YOU are unable to detect him/it. You assume because you cannot detect him/it and because you don’t believe it is possible to detect him he cannot be detected. This is an erroneous view. God is immeasurable, and he is incomprehensible to the discursive mind, but he is NOT incomprehensible to the non-discursive mind. He just may not be comprehensively described discursively. This is because he exists outside the limitations of the discursive world of cause and effect. If you have not learned to perceive according to the non-discursive mind you will not perceive God/Tao in an unobstructed manner. Since you have not had the experience of perceiving in an unobstructed manner you cannot understand the experience, just as someone who as not eaten an orange cannot understand the taste of an orange.

Individuals with preconceived notions of how god functions, who believe in spirituality, and can provide absolutely no evidence to corroborate what they feel (it's just an emotion). There was a chick in college who stalked me for 3 years, was bipolar, and when she wasn't taking her meds, thought she was a druid priestess. Whenever I hear of these individual, direct experiences of god, I automatically think UFO abductions, bipolarism, and paranoid schizophrenia. Sounds rough, I know. But many prominent religious leaders were epileptic, paranoid schizos (think Paul, or perhaps Caesar [he trained to be a high priest as a youth]).

Some of your point cannot be denied, but you are comparing apples to oranges here. Many individuals experience emotional disturbances that create delusions, others have transcendent experiences they are unable to integrate into their identity and belief system, this may cause some disassociation from material reality and/or confusion about what has been experienced because there has been no foundational context established for the experience. These are the apples. Oranges are the individuals who do NOT experience flights of fancy or disassociate from material reality due to their transcendent experiences. These individuals do have an appropriate context for their experiences and do NOT use their experiences as a means to gain power and control over others. (I would concede these individuals are few and far between.) It takes a certain amount of skill and ability to be able to integrate transcendent experiences and to communicate them in an understandable manner to those who have not had the experience for themselves. At any rate, all individuals need to have the experience for themselves in order to fully understand them.

It is foolish to blindly follow anyone who professes knowledge of God/Tao. Critical thinking is still necessary to discern psycho-babble and psycho-pathology from the sincere individuals who seek to have and understand transcendent experience. Even when a sincere person is discovered they are not to be blindly followed. Transcendent experiences are to be individually experienced and are validated by the direct experience. The advice and lessons of true teachers should be considered as a finger pointing the way towards acquiring the direct experience and not as strict rules to be blindly followed.

God/Tao must be directly experienced to be known. This direct experience has nothing to do with the social and cultural rules that often attend organized religions.

Actually, linear thinking is natural. It helps the young mind make sense of the world. It isn't conditioning. As a matter of fact, religious conditioning vies against this progression, and "trains the mind to think in a non-linear fashion" as you suggested earlier. In other words, religion trains you to think unnaturally.
I have made no statement indicating that linear thinking is inappropriate according to its proper context. In the material world linear, discursive thinking is a necessary skill to develop in order to adequately navigate life. Linear discursive thinking is only one aspect or quality of mind. It is limited according to its context. Direct, unobstructed experience of God/Tao occurs in a non-discursive manner. I have used numerous metaphors to describe this such as happiness, the taste of an orange or the viewing of a painting. These are experiences that must be directly experienced in order to comprehensively understand them. The same occurs for experience of God/Tao. If a person does not make the effort to have the direct experience their critical comments have no validity because they are commenting upon experiences for which they have no real knowledge. As I have previously stated, it is similar to an individual being critical about another’s experience of tasting an orange while never actually tasting one for themselves.

Scott R. Brown

06-05-2007, 06:39 PM

Hi Shaolin Wookie continued,

I stated:

We tend to not explore that which we believe to be beyond reason or that which we consider unreasonable, forgetting or not understanding that there is a manner of perceiving that exists prior to discursive thinking. The consequence of this is we no longer are able to perceive clearly, that is, we perceive with preconceived notions. These preconceived notions filter reality/experience for us and therefore we only perceive what we want to or expect to perceive and not what is actually occurring.

I think this statement is ridiculous. (I hope you don't think I'm being disdainful. This is an argument, and I'm not going to waste words, so it might sound abusive) . According to this thesis, General and special relativity would never have arisen. People constantly question the existence of things, and their non-existence. Consider the technological revolution of the past century. The world does not even look like a former shade of itself anymore. Seventeenth century time-travellers would never recognize New York City....

This does not preclude one from having conditioned views that regulate what they will accept as worthy of investigation. You appear to have fixed views about this subject. These fixed views limit your ability to fully understand the topic. These fixed views affect your ability to consider information that contradicts your fixed view. This is not a quality of mind that is unique to you, it occurs with all humans. There are numerous examples available to demonstrate scientists are affected by this limitation as well. Subjects they consider closed, thinking they are fully understood, are examples of closed mindedness that affects their ability to explore beyond what they consider reasonable.

I wrote:

We are conditioned from birth to perceive in a discursive manner. Experience/Knowledge of God/Tao is a direct experience and not something easily communicated in a linear manner. In like kind, the KNOWING we obtain of God/Tao occurs in the experience itself.

I don't like this line of thinking. I never have. You question the gamut of experience/perception based on what experience/perception has given you first, in order for you to question its validity. This is like the skeptic's credo. Fun to read. But logically untenable.

This is an excellent example of my previous point. You have a fixed view and cannot understand a clearly worded example that refutes your view. My examples may be directly experienced to prove the point. I return you to the example of happiness and the orange. You will be unable to understand the experience of happiness or the taste of an orange unless you have had the experience yourself. These experiences occur in a non-discursive manner. They are communicated in a discursive manner. When a non-discursive experience is discursively described the non-discursive experience gets confused with the discursive description. The description is NOT the thing itself. A description of the experience does not GIVE you the experience. A description is merely an inadequate indication of what the direct experience is LIKE not what it IS! The fact you are apparently unable to understand this simple point demonstrates how your fixed view will not allow you to consider what you have determined to be unreasonable.

I wrote:

This is a misunderstanding of God/Tao; God/Tao exists because he has knowledge/sentience or himself! Others are NOT a necessity!

They are. If I'm born alone in a black cave, fed through some kind of nano-technological feeding device (don't ask), and have a sense perception inhibitor of another nano-technological sort, and am never able to feel, touch, taste, smell, see, or hear anything outside of myself, or even of myself, I will never develop any kind of identity. For all I know I could be running through a forest, hitting every tree on the way there, but I'll never know it. I have no input. Hence, there is no development.

This is pretty demonstrative of the tyranny of cause and effect.

You are assuming here. You do not fully understand the qualities of mind so you cannot know this will occur. Since the mind’s function is thought, thought will occur; we just do not know how thought would be manifested. It is just as likely the mind would create qualities of thought and artificially separate them from itself as God/Tao has done. It is possible discursive thought would occur spontaneously, since this is an inherent quality of mind. Once discursive thought occurs there is subject and object and the mind is free to create its own world of separate phenomena. The only reason our dreams occur according the context of material experience is because this is the primary context experienced by the discursive mind. There is no reason to believe this is the only way we dream. It is at least possible the mind translates non-discursive experience into a discursive context in order to make the dream more understandable to the limited perception of our mind.

Well, ****, I've studied it almost 20 years (first five years don't really count, except as brainwashing), half-in, half-out, and never half-assed. My greatest gripe with religion is that 99% of the people who profess it, or profess to disbelieve in it, display 5% sincerity on the topic. That goes for many of the people on this board. Hopefully, I figure if I stir up enough ****, someone might actually begin to exercise their brain cells. that's why I love to argue this subject, and why many people hate to do so. (Not talking about you, SB)

I would agree with you concerning sincerity and religion.

I am not discussing organized religion here, but direct experience of God/Tao. Religion serves a purpose in society; if it didn’t it would not exist, however organized religions commonly create limited, flawed and sometimes foolish views of God/Tao.

Organized religion serves a social and emotional purpose for those who need it, but it creates a limiting and confining context for those who choose to transcend the narrow aspects of the social and emotional context. Religions are one means societies use to cultivate social cohesion. Social cohesion is generally a benefit to individuals and that is why cohesive structures occur, however these same structures force individuals to conform to artificial structures that limit human experience and creativity. All societies require common behavior codes in order to provide social cohesion; one consequence of this is it creates a sense of “us and them” which encourages conflict.

Most of the major religions do have indications of the principles I have discussed, but they are hidden within the teaching and are not easily discerned. The majority of adherents participate in the social aspects conforming to rituals and behaviors on a superficial level, but never explore the deeper meanings.

I love discussing this topic. I may not be a believer. But I am sincere in my interest and research into it.

I appreciate your sincere interest, but sincerity is not a substitute for comprehensive understanding. You may have been investigating for 20 years, but your search does not appear to have produced satisfactory results. Your posts appear to reflect resentment, hostility and frustration. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the tone of your posts or, if I am correct, perhaps your attitude is due to the lack of satisfaction with your current belief system. In other words, perhaps you have an inner desire or impetus to want to believe/understand, but have not found a satisfactory means to come to an understanding of God/Tao. I will leave it to you to clarify your position if you so desire.

At any rate I appreciate your continued participation in our discussion.

kwaichang

06-05-2007, 06:40 PM

Dont argue with me San argue with God with your poor logic. You cant win as you are flawed in your thinking and true learning comes from training not questions. KC

SanHeChuan

06-05-2007, 06:46 PM

God isn't talking calls right now. :D

But you did address me so..., but I guess you can't justify what God does because as Christian's like you say, He works in mysterious and EVIL ways. ;)

How is it bad LOGIC to think that murder, rape, slavery, and human sacrifice are BAD things? :eek:

You could spend a long time training to do the wrong thing for want of the right question. :p

kwaichang

06-05-2007, 06:51 PM

No you could. If Adolph Hitler had beenkilled as a child then many lives would have been saved. But the one that may have been saved could have been far worse. You must know God to call him. I think he is unlisted to thase like you. Try Prayer. KC

kwaichang

06-05-2007, 06:52 PM

Do you believe capitol punishment is ok . KC

SanHeChuan

06-05-2007, 07:02 PM

Do you believe capitol punishment is ok .

Sure, but i don't believe in killing the family, friends, and neibours of the guilty. And never ever for children. :rolleyes:

No you could.

Could what? :confused:

If Adolph Hitler had beenkilled as a child then many lives would have been saved. But the one that may have been saved could have been far worse.

Well if we have free will then that is not for God to decide. If we are free to chose between good and evil, he can't kill us before we get to make the choice.

Shaolin Wookie

06-05-2007, 07:12 PM

WinterPalm

Can't agrue with that! :D

But are there really any current alternatives that will have less impact on the environment, or are we jumping the gun, because we are too scared not to make a change.

That's exactly it. It's an issue of convenience. We're happy with the mode of convenience we enjoy. What a hassle it would be to give up our personal freedom in automobiles, where we can drive alone and consume gas like gluttons.

It's why I fear electric cars will never catch on. The recharge is just so inconvenient. But necessity will dictate just how long our convenience will be tolerated.

Shaolin Wookie

06-05-2007, 07:22 PM

Your argument is flawed as you are human and imperfect. Who are you to question God you have no idea of the master plan . The word of God is corrupted and in all of your so called "LOGIC" condemn the god for the acts of man. Your MA teacher teaches you if you question his method you will learn but not as well as you could or should. There is evil in in the world even with out God or Christianity. Look at the Mayans and the Chinese and the Russians look at Lenin MaoTse Tung and others . You are confused by your own ego in thinking you are wiser than God. KC

Hahahaha.........

I am flawed and imperfect because I am human. Well, I admit I am human. Flawed and imperfect? Well, 7 million years of evolution led up to me. I'm strong. I support myself. I make a good living. I am reasonably intelligent, and I am kind.

I also do not believe in God.

I dont' condemn god for the acts of man. And I don't laud him for them either. He didn't do evil things. Men did. And he didn't do good things. Men did. I think you'd appreciate both points. But then how does God take credit?

Believers tend to make the common mistake of attributing all good things to god, for they wish to have a positive god. An evil one just doesn't make sense. Obivously, love is in our best interest. Therefore, god is love. But I could write a treatise describing an evil god, where he enjoins evil, and the main flaw in the argument would be, wouldn't you know it, "the problem of good."

Different sides of the same coin.

Actually, I find questioning a teacher to be a good thing to do. My needs are not the same as my classmate's. His needs are not mine. I learn by questioning. Sometimes I know the answer before I hear it, sometimes I have no friggin' clue. But I ask nonetheless, because asking, questioning, doubting--they're part of learning. If you've never doubted, you've never learned. Einstein made a crappy Newtonian physicist. But he was the engineer of relativity.

Ponder.

I'm not wiser than god. Nobody is.

But do you know why I'd make that statement?:D

SanHeChuan

06-05-2007, 07:23 PM

Does the electric car really consume less oil that a traditional combustion one?

It still takes a good deal of oil to produce those batteries, unfortunately I can't find a good chart for the argument at this time. Maybe someone else will have better luck.

It's an issue of convenience.

Is it? or is it an issue of trading one pollution for another.

But necessity will dictate just how long our convenience will be tolerated.

Ok now I know some people have just not been listening. :D

Shaolin Wookie

06-05-2007, 07:38 PM

Hi Shaolin Wookie continued,

I stated:

We tend to not explore that which we believe to be beyond reason or that which we consider unreasonable, forgetting or not understanding that there is a manner of perceiving that exists prior to discursive thinking. The consequence of this is we no longer are able to perceive clearly, that is, we perceive with preconceived notions. These preconceived notions filter reality/experience for us and therefore we only perceive what we want to or expect to perceive and not what is actually occurring.

This does not preclude one from having conditioned views that regulate what they will accept as worthy of investigation. You appear to have fixed views about this subject. These fixed views limit your ability to fully understand the topic. These fixed views affect your ability to consider information that contradicts your fixed view. This is not a quality of mind that is unique to you, it occurs with all humans. There are numerous examples available to demonstrate scientists are affected by this limitation as well. Subjects they consider closed, thinking they are fully understood, are examples of closed mindedness that affects their ability to explore beyond what they consider reasonable.

I wrote:

We are conditioned from birth to perceive in a discursive manner. Experience/Knowledge of God/Tao is a direct experience and not something easily communicated in a linear manner. In like kind, the KNOWING we obtain of God/Tao occurs in the experience itself.

This is an excellent example of my previous point. You have a fixed view and cannot understand a clearly worded example that refutes your view. My examples may be directly experienced to prove the point. I return you to the example of happiness and the orange. You will be unable to understand the experience of happiness or the taste of an orange unless you have had the experience yourself. These experiences occur in a non-discursive manner. They are communicated in a discursive manner. When a non-discursive experience is discursively described the non-discursive experience gets confused with the discursive description. The description is NOT the thing itself. A description of the experience does not GIVE you the experience. A description is merely an inadequate indication of what the direct experience is LIKE not what it IS! The fact you are apparently unable to understand this simple point demonstrates how your fixed view will not allow you to consider what you have determined to be unreasonable.

I wrote:

This is a misunderstanding of God/Tao; God/Tao exists because he has knowledge/sentience or himself! Others are NOT a necessity!

You are assuming here. You do not fully understand the qualities of mind so you cannot know this will occur. Since the mind’s function is thought, thought will occur; we just do not know how thought would be manifested. It is just as likely the mind would create qualities of thought and artificially separate them from itself as God/Tao has done. It is possible discursive thought would occur spontaneously, since this is an inherent quality of mind. Once discursive thought occurs there is subject and object and the mind is free to create its own world of separate phenomena. The only reason our dreams occur according the context of material experience is because this is the primary context experienced by the discursive mind. There is no reason to believe this is the only way we dream. It is at least possible the mind translates non-discursive experience into a discursive context in order to make the dream more understandable to the limited perception of our mind.

I would agree with you concerning sincerity and religion.

I am not discussing organized religion here, but direct experience of God/Tao. Religion serves a purpose in society; if it didn’t it would not exist, however organized religions commonly create limited, flawed and sometimes foolish views of God/Tao.

Organized religion serves a social and emotional purpose for those who need it, but it creates a limiting and confining context for those who choose to transcend the narrow aspects of the social and emotional context. Religions are one means societies use to cultivate social cohesion. Social cohesion is generally a benefit to individuals and that is why cohesive structures occur, however these same structures force individuals to conform to artificial structures that limit human experience and creativity. All societies require common behavior codes in order to provide social cohesion; one consequence of this is it creates a sense of “us and them” which encourages conflict.

Most of the major religions do have indications of the principles I have discussed, but they are hidden within the teaching and are not easily discerned. The majority of adherents participate in the social aspects conforming to rituals and behaviors on a superficial level, but never explore the deeper meanings.

I appreciate your sincere interest, but sincerity is not a substitute for comprehensive understanding. You may have been investigating for 20 years, but your search does not appear to have produced satisfactory results. Your posts appear to reflect resentment, hostility and frustration. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the tone of your posts or, if I am correct, perhaps your attitude is due to the lack of satisfaction with your current belief system. In other words, perhaps you have an inner desire or impetus to want to believe/understand, but have not found a satisfactory means to come to an understanding of God/Tao. I will leave it to you to clarify your position if you so desire.

At any rate I appreciate your continued participation in our discussion.

I'll write a reply on this issue on Saturday, when I have time. Until then, I guess I ought to say--I do resent the brainwashing, and the hegemony. But in the struggle for truth, I learned a lot. I have no other resentment and hostility towards religion, except for closeminded kinds. Spirituality? Don't know...tried it, and it didn't fit. Many people considered me a mystic for a long time. But I never did. In fact, many of my closest friends and family don't know I'm an atheist. Some do. I don't cloak my thoughts. Some people just don't want to see their friend or son become "one of those people." All they know is when the subject of religion is broached, I can speak far more fluently with a well-informed sense of history, politics, and spirituality. (KFM...that's anothers story:D). My uncle is a minister. For years we had discussions. He figured me for a non-conformist. But I was an atheist, according to usual definitions. Me? I'm nothing. And nothing else.:D He was surprised to discover I was an atheist, and had been so for years. Now he gives me smug smiles, and prods me into arguments he constantly loses.

Yes, I think the Bible is a joke. I pick on bad books. But I promise you. I'm just as hard on Danielle Steel and Harry Potter.:D

Shaolin Wookie

06-05-2007, 07:39 PM

And the Bronte sisters.:rolleyes:

kwaichang

06-05-2007, 08:28 PM

People typically do not believe in those things they cannot explain KC

SanHeChuan

06-05-2007, 08:37 PM

People typically do not believe in those things they cannot explain KC

People typically make stuff up to explain the things they can not understand. :p

fa_jing

06-05-2007, 09:47 PM

--And, in order for "I" or self-identity to function or even exist, there must exist a separation between the operative and the operation.--

So, the I that perceives itself is not the same as the I being perceived?

In the introduction to Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" he defines the "I" as that which to exist and to perceive itself are one and the same. Trippy, ain't it?

Anyway, I see strange connections in life. More than meets the eye.

Anybody here read Goedel Escher Bach? Unfortunately I haven't had time yet.

Also funny how some of the modern philosophy parallels elements of Eastern Philosophy, both South and East Asian.

fa_jing

06-05-2007, 09:51 PM

So, who here can tell me how Chris Angel Mindfreak does the tricks? Anybody?

Crushing Fist

06-05-2007, 11:10 PM

I haven't read this entire thread carefully but can't resist philosophy, so I'll just make a few brief comments.

I'll be staying away from the "God" debate, save to say I am an atheist who is acutely aware of the current limits of human knowledge.

HAHA....there's a reason our minds to perceive things in linear fashions concerning cause and effect, dude.

It goes the way with this world that causes beget effects.

This can only lead to the question of what was the original cause? If "all" effects need a cause we find the central paradox of existence very quickly. This seems to leave us either inventing a cause to fill that blank, or accepting "infinty" which, lets be honest, amounts to little more than just saying, "I don't know". In this case, I prefer to skip to the end.

Am I?

This question answers itself. A more dificult question would be:

"Is anything else?"

According to this thesis, General and special relativity would never have arisen. People constantly question the existence of things, and their non-existence. Consider the technological revolution of the past century. The world does not even look like a former shade of itself anymore. Seventeenth century time-travellers would never recognize New York City....

You are pointing to the exception in order to disprove the rule. Most of the time, most people do not question existence or non-existence, and the genius that has brought us this far can in no way be considered the norm.

If I'm born alone in a black cave, fed through some kind of nanotechnological feeding device (don't ask), and have a sense perception inhibitor of another nanotechnological sort, and am never able to feel, touch, taste, smell, see, or hear anything outside of myself, or even of myself, I will never develop any kind of identity. For all I know I could be running through a forest, hitting every tree on the way there, but I'll never know it. I have no input. Hence, there is no development.

This is pretty demonstrative of the tyranny of cause and effect.

This seems correct, but it is as untestable as God and not really a useful arguement. It does, however, lead to the obvious problem (one brought up by Plato, whom I can only imagine your above scenario is derived from) of the limitations of our input. The only connection to the "outside" is through our senses, and only so far as they can be trusted can we have "reality". What we know of everything "out there" can never be more than a shadow cast on the wall. However, take all those shadows away, and what is left? We can't know. It leads us to the same place as the prime mover question, just taking another road there.

kwaichang

06-06-2007, 04:08 AM

DPL

06-06-2007, 07:16 AM

Since most athiests believe there is no God but cant prove it...

It's a religious argument. Nobody can prove anything. The atheists can't prove anything, the Christians can't prove anything, the agnostics can't prove anything, and the scientists can't prove anything.

That's why it will never end, and also why it's interesting to read.

Right now I'm judging the score as Shaolin Wookie and Scott R. Brown tied on core points, with SB slightly ahead on concept because he's taking into account both linear and non-linear thought and SW seems to want to treat non-linear as invalid somehow, which seems a bit odd given the fairly obvious binary qualities of humanity and human perception.

Keep it up guys - fun to read... :)

DPL

06-06-2007, 07:19 AM

And the Bronte sisters.:rolleyes:

But SW gets bonus points for calling out the Bronte sisters. :p How in the h*** did they end up being respected, 'classic' authors...?

SevenStar

06-06-2007, 07:50 AM

I dont' condemn god for the acts of man. And I don't laud him for them either. He didn't do evil things. Men did. And he didn't do good things. Men did. I think you'd appreciate both points. But then how does God take credit?

the same way your teacher takes credit for your martial skill or lack thereof - it came from him.

Believers tend to make the common mistake of attributing all good things to god, for they wish to have a positive god. An evil one just doesn't make sense. Obivously, love is in our best interest. Therefore, god is love. But I could write a treatise describing an evil god, where he enjoins evil, and the main flaw in the argument would be, wouldn't you know it, "the problem of good."

and thus, you have satan. they are yin and yang. God is given credit for bad things as well, just not ungodly things. shaolin do - god's credit. murdering sin the - satan's idea, although it may be a great idea in the eyes of many.

Shaolin Wookie

06-06-2007, 07:20 PM

So, who here can tell me how Chris Angel Mindfreak does the tricks? Anybody?

I know and can do several of them. The smaller ones are easy. The levitation is tough. When it's in a small room, and he's levitating onto an object (chair, ledge), he does the most common form of the trick, which is to angle his body away, then he slips his leg out of a false leg casing built into his pants, out through a small slit near the knee, then just steps up (which is hard to do in this manner, but he's in great shape). Seen it done by a dude at UGA who didn't care about the secrecy of it.

Now, as for the big illusions: being hit by a car, the fire extinguisher one....hell, you just have to give it to the man....he's good.

I do think some are just camera tricks, though.

Shaolin Wookie

06-06-2007, 07:31 PM

Since most athiests believe there is no God but cant prove it , I am curious how do they , the athiests, explain our universe or our being here, if in reality we are here and the I that is within us all, the believers and the non-believers, where did it come from and after death where does it go ? BTW my ego does not allow me to question God I do not try to imagine I am that intelligent. KC

Well, biologically speaking, we're not that unique. Self identity is shared by many species. In the light of natural selection, it is our intelligence and intellection that allows us to survive. We're just the most cunning of all the species, outside of dolphins and penguins, of course.

The most profound thing I ever saw was a scientific study of a chimpanzee who was given a full length mirror. They set several different species of monkeys and apes in front of it, and all of them thought it was a window with another monkey or ape behind it. They then marked the animals with paint in another room, then returned the animals to the mirror room, to see if they recognized themselves. None of the species did. But then they brought out a chimp. They set the chimp in front of it, and you actually saw the process of self-recognition develop. It was absolutely amazing. They then took the chimp out of the room, marked him with paint without letting him see they were doing it, then took him back to the mirror and set him in front of it. Immediately he saw his reflection, reached up to his head, and began grooming the paint out of it. He didn't see glass and another chimp. He saw himself. And he saw a strange substance on his head which wasn't there before.

Absolutely friggin' mindblowing, eh?

Self-recognition in "lower" species. And you got to see him develop it so quickly and acutely.

It takes certain brain configs. to develop self-recognition and point-of-projection awareness. A snail doesn't need it. Neither does a bacterium.

And this leads us to the origin of life on earth: bacteria. The same things that spark fungi, plant growth, and life cultures. They are the most likely candidate for having fostered life on earth.

I would also correct your definition of an atheist. He/she is not someone who believes there is no god. He/she is someone who has no belief whatsoever in god. It's a minor shift in syntax, but it carries a different meaning. A-thiesm=without theism...not disbelief in theism. Hence, we are all atheists at birth.

Shaolin Wookie

06-06-2007, 07:34 PM

the same way your teacher takes credit for your martial skill or lack thereof - it came from him.

Now I'm going to be a smartass and say: And where did he get it? From his master? And his master? From his master?

A chan of causes. But it does not imply the existence of an all-powerful martial artist, does it? No, just more masters, and more time.

And occasionally, yes.....a really hairy Chinese dude.

and thus, you have satan. they are yin and yang. God is given credit for bad things as well, just not ungodly things. shaolin do - god's credit. murdering sin the - satan's idea, although it may be a great idea in the eyes of many.

HAHAHAHA.......funny......:D

Shaolin Wookie

06-06-2007, 07:36 PM

Anybody here read Goedel Escher Bach?.

I read it. I wasn't big on it, though. Which is strange, because as a philosopher, painter, and a poor poor piano player, I love Godel, Escher, and Bach.

It didn't suck or anything. But it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Lots to be learned in that book, though. Lots.

And I'm not embarrassed to say I didn't understand it all. Some of it is rather abstruse. Godel is always a mindjob, and you always see him abused in print (hijacked for inapplicalbe agendas).

Since we're on this subject, I'd recommend this book:

(I have to look up the title at home...but it involves studies of the brain, and its link to theology as a kind of neuroticism....very intriguing. I'll edit and post the title later.).

Shaolin Wookie

06-06-2007, 07:45 PM

This can only lead to the question of what was the original cause?

Only if you're looking for short-answer conclusions. The time-frame invovled is astronomical, and we can't ever expect right now to answer that question with our current technology and knowledge of the universe. Who's to say there is an original cause? String theory's use of universal branes would allow transfers of energy between fluctuating universes, enough to cause the big bang.

But of course, this is all theoretical.

Which brings us to this:

You are pointing to the exception in order to disprove the rule. Most of the time, most people do not question existence or non-existence, and the genius that has brought us this far can in no way be considered the norm.

People muck about in science. It's never one method, one answer. Hundreds prove themselves wrong in order for another to prove himself right.

Lamarck, anyone?

Einstein was nothing without Maxwell or Planck. They proposed ideas. He proposed elaborations. Knowledge is syncretic, not episodic.

Think of Watson and Crick. Would they have been what they were, or capable of drawing those conclusions without the competition and previous works of Linus Pauling?

I say no. Hell, Watson didn't know anything about chemistry, even by his own admission. And what is DNA? Chemistry (I know, you'd think it's biology. But they were forming the structure, which was an issue in chemistry).

This brings up an issue people tend to gloss over. Science (knowledge) is problem solving. It isn't let's propose some unintelligible nonsense to explain things that make sense. It's, let's propose some things that might make sense, try 'em out, and see if they hold water logically and experimentally. Sometimes you throw out some nonsense, to get the ball rolling. It helps do away with the scientific version of writer's block. I don't know why anyone would ever rag on that system of learning
(you weren't, but some are).

When persons such as myself take on the religious mentality, we become frustrated very quickly in learning that this mentality has usually completely ignored inquiries into the subject of existence outside the realm of theology. Religious persons (generally), and many atheists (a surprisingly large number) have only the kiddie pool depth of knowledge on the subjects of biology, astronomy, chemistry....and most importantly...evolution itself.

Darwin is continually eviscerated. Why? Because he proposed a logical solution (not entirely correct...but improved upon by his successing generations) based on a lifetime of biological research.

This seems correct, but it is as untestable as God and not really a useful arguement. It does, however, lead to the obvious problem (one brought up by Plato, whom I can only imagine your above scenario is derived from) of the limitations of our input. The only connection to the "outside" is through our senses, and only so far as they can be trusted can we have "reality". What we know of everything "out there" can never be more than a shadow cast on the wall. However, take all those shadows away, and what is left? We can't know. It leads us to the same place as the prime mover question, just taking another road there.

Less like Plato. More like that vegetable chick in Florida from a couple of years back.

The mind reacts to stimuli. Without having ever had a single stimulus, it would never react. It would be vegetative. Insentient. Absolutely no self-awareness.

Can you remember or experience even one thing that did not involve one of your 5 senses?

Of course not.

If you've never had to react, you never were.

Shaolin Wookie

06-06-2007, 07:54 PM

It's a religious argument. Nobody can prove anything. The atheists can't prove anything, the Christians can't prove anything, the agnostics can't prove anything, and the scientists can't prove anything.

That's why it will never end, and also why it's interesting to read.

Right now I'm judging the score as Shaolin Wookie and Scott R. Brown tied on core points, with SB slightly ahead on concept because he's taking into account both linear and non-linear thought and SW seems to want to treat non-linear as invalid somehow, which seems a bit odd given the fairly obvious binary qualities of humanity and human perception.

Keep it up guys - fun to read... :)

This is the way I look at it. We have Christians and other religious people trying to prove something they cannot pinpoint with anything less than ambiguous language and a lack of evidence. Then we have atheists saying they've drawn inaccurate conclusions on sketcy logic and absolutely no evidence whatsoever. In their stead, they offer evidence of things that may have happened based one what's at hand. They sometimes offer up ideas of things that may have happened, but it's sparked by a kind of epistemological method. Then they study how certain epistemological methods yielded evolution, DNA, genetics, and galactic formation, based on observations. The thoeries get honed, until they're **** near irrefutable, until they are irrefutable.

Bush says the jury's out on evolution. He condemned hundreds to die at the chair who were convicted using DNA evidence. The irony? He believes in DNA, but obviously does not understand it. DNA has no function outside of inheritence of attributes. What is the inheritence of attributes over time called? Well, oddly enough...evolution. And now that "jury" pun really rams a rod straight up his arse....hahahaha.....

Then there's agnostics, who are basically atheists without a backbone, still a little frightened of dropping off the deep end of Pascal's infernal wager.

Crushing Fist

06-06-2007, 09:13 PM

It's never one method, one answer. Hundreds prove themselves wrong in order for another to prove himself right.

Hundreds? How many people are currently living in this world? How many of them are scientists or are trained to think like scientists? To the average person what you are saying might as well be a hermetic spell. They don't know and they don't want to know. They are just glad it works without questions. What I am talking about is the overwhelming majority.

Less like Plato. More like that vegetable chick in Florida from a couple of years back.

The mind reacts to stimuli. Without having ever had a single stimulus, it would never react. It would be vegetative. Insentient. Absolutely no self-awareness.

Can you remember or experience even one thing that did not involve one of your 5 senses?

Of course not.

If you've never had to react, you never were.

How very reactionary... try being more 'proactive'. Then we can 'synergize' :p

Ok, please devise an experiment that can test this theory you state as an unquestionable fact. In order to collect uncontaminated data you must use a mind which has never had any stimulus. The 'vegetable chick' hardly counts as she lived a normal life up until becoming mostly brain dead.

I'm interested in how you will collect data about a mind's sense of self without interacting with it in any way that could stimulate a response.

Meanwhile, I'll be looking for God in this box of Cheerios.

Crushing Fist

06-06-2007, 09:29 PM

Only if you're looking for short-answer conclusions. The time-frame invovled is astronomical, and we can't ever expect right now to answer that question with our current technology and knowledge of the universe. Who's to say there is an original cause? String theory's use of universal branes would allow transfers of energy between fluctuating universes, enough to cause the big bang.

But of course, this is all theoretical.

Go back and read the first bit of my first post on this thread... good, now that we are in agreement, let's continue.

Why is it looking for short-answer conclusions? It's the central question to reality:

Why is there something instead of nothing at all?

The time-frame is irrelevant. In a linear universe one action is preceeded by another: cause--->effect

If we live in a linear universe there must be an original cause. Otherwise the universe cannot be linear. Right?

String theory... fluctuating universes tranferring energy. Uh-huh...

Caused by what?

::waits for answer::

Oh? And what caused that?

Go on... just say it. It will feel good, I promise.

Just say, "I don't know".

:D

Let's discuss this expanding earth "theory".

Yes, really.

I'll start...

Wow, those animated maps look pretty cool. D@mned interesting. Seems completely wacko other than that.

I like wacko, it makes me smile. :)

fa_jing

06-06-2007, 09:46 PM

This statement is false:eek::cool:

SanHeChuan

06-06-2007, 11:06 PM

This statement is false

Whoa (http://www.hfstival.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10148/NeoWhoa.jpg) :p

.................................................. ....

SanHeChuan

06-07-2007, 01:06 AM

Ron paul for president (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd4yS3j0qkc&NR=1)

I include this because he touches on global warming. :D

Also so far I just like the way this guy thinks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo). :eek:

Bill Maher likes this dude now (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYDt7kC3Z0)... :cool:

Scott R. Brown

06-07-2007, 02:06 AM

Hi Shaolin Wookie,

The mind reacts to stimuli. Without having ever had a single stimulus, it would never react. It would be vegetative. Insentient. Absolutely no self-awareness.

Once again you are assuming here and you are incorrect.

Mind creates its own stimuli, as I have already stated.

1) Without a Mind to perceive things, nothing exists.
2) Things exists, therefore there is a Mind that perceives.
3) Therefore, everything perceived is a product of mind.
4) Without a mind to perceive it, mind does not exist.
5) Mind perceives itself, therefore mind exists.
6) Existence is mind in action that is, mind perceiving, and what mind perceives is Itself.
7) Since Mind requires mind to exist, mind is self-existent. Hmmmm? Sound familiar again??
8) Particulars come from Universals.
9) Creation is a particular. Mind is Universal!
10) Individual minds are products of the Universal Mind.
11) Therefore, creation, all things, are a product of Mind/God/Tao etc.

There is one unlimited mind from which all limited minds spring; this Mind has been called, God, Tao, Buddha Nature, Thus-ness, Is-ness, Such-ness, Yaweh, etc. To be sure there have been many attempts to define and anthropomorphize this Mind. However, the opening of “The Tao Te Ching” teaches, “The Tao (God) that can be defined, is not the True/Actual/Complete Tao (God)!” Definitions are created by man for the purposes of man and do not reflect the true nature of Tao/God.

Can you remember or experience even one thing that did not involve one of your 5 senses?

Yes I can! Yes, I have! and Yes, you can too!!

It is the non-discursive mind, the Buddha Nature, the essence of mind, etc. Ch’an masters call it the “thought of no thought”. It is the manner of thinking that occurs before words or symbols are produced in the mind. Words and symbols are not necessary when the mind thinks, they are necessary when one mind is communicating with another mind in a non-direct manner, that is, in the material sphere where all minds are apparently separate from one and other. With separation comes the need for communication, and symbols are used. We call these symbols words.

Thought originally occurs without words; the mind translates thought into words in order to make thought understandable by others who understand the same symbols. This thought that precedes words occurs within EVERY mind and is called “essence of mind” in Ch’an. “Essence of mind” may be directly observed/apprehended/experienced by anyone who takes the time to practice looking for it. This is accomplished through introspection. It isn’t difficult to observe with practice, I discovered it in my teens without any instruction, although it took me decades to fully understand it because I had no instruction on the matter.

If a person wishes to understand things like this they must EAT THE ORANGE, that is, search out the direct experience for their self. The direct experience is found by looking within the mind.

Most people are well educated on the writings of other people, but are ignorant (no offense intended here) of the inner workings of mind. All things are a function of mind, therefore search out and understand the function of mind and be less concerned about what others have to say about the universe. Scientists are experts on the outer world, to become an expert on the inner world we must introspect into our own minds and discover for ourselves how it functions. We must each “Eat The Orange”, to apprehend the taste directly. If we refuse to eat the orange we are fools pretending to have knowledge about something of which we are actually ignorant.

Most people are nothing more than experts on the teachings of other people. This is the knowledge of a novice. We are all experts to some extent on the words of others; this is how we are taught subjects of learning. We learn what others have learned before us.

When we begin to learn about the MA we follow the instruction of someone we hold in authority. However, to achieve a certain level of experience and skill we must have direct validation by experience of the principles of our art. We must have firsthand experience. This firsthand experience brings us out of the realm of experts on the teachings of others into the realm of expertise for ourselves. Expertise will not occur if we refuse to learn firsthand for ourselves. I know many MA who are instructors who still blindly follow what they were taught from the beginning, never learning firsthand. These individuals remain experts on the teachings of others and will never master the subject. Mastery comes from firsthand knowledge. It is the same with knowledge of the mind and this only occurs through introspection into the mind in order to apprehend directly. If this does not occur it is the same as a person commenting about the taste of an orange without ever having tasted one. He is not an expert on oranges, but merely an expert on what others have said about the taste of an orange.

Samurai Jack

06-07-2007, 02:18 AM

I second that! Check out the latest:

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=188167

Ron Paul's Latest Ad (http://www.crossdressing.pl/pics/pic_rupaul2.jpg)

SanHeChuan

06-07-2007, 12:18 PM

D@mn I was gonna make a Ru paul joke. :mad::D

DPL

06-07-2007, 12:29 PM

That's good enough for a sig...

DPL

06-07-2007, 12:44 PM

Bush says the jury's out on evolution. He condemned hundreds to die at the chair who were convicted using DNA evidence. The irony? He believes in DNA, but obviously does not understand it. DNA has no function outside of inheritence of attributes. What is the inheritence of attributes over time called? Well, oddly enough...evolution. And now that "jury" pun really rams a rod straight up his arse....hahahaha.....

Well, obviously Bush makes the evolution comment because it's politically expedient for him and his party to say things like that. In a bizarre twist of logic, it's politically expedient for him to believe in the death penalty to appeal to mostly the same crowd.

The only politician I've seen in 20 years who seems to say what he really thinks is Ron Paul, and he's got a snowball's chance in Texas of getting elected.

Funny you should bring evolution up, though. Back in college, there was this big evolution vs. creation debate staged between one of the school's philosophy professors (who had multiple doctorates, one in biology) and a travelling Christian pastor who evidently made it his life's work to travel and debate the subject at various schools. Professor was pro-evolution (hopefully obvious). It was a fun debate with both guys making some good points. I went in preinclined to believe the theory of evolution, and walked out feeling like the philosophy professor won a debate that was closer than I expected.

Funny thing about that is, a number of my classmates also watched the debate and UNIFORMLY, if they walked in believing in creationism they felt like the pastor demolished the professor, and if they walked in believing in evolution they thought the professor demolished the pastor. No one, other than me, thought it was even close.

The point was that people only saw what they were preinclined to see. Uniformly. Based on belief. One of the only times that the light going off over my head shone brightly instead of fizzling. That pretty much informed my opinion on these kinds of debates for all time. They're fun little intellectual exercises, but no one ever changes anyone else's mind.

SanHeChuan

06-07-2007, 01:02 PM

They're fun little intellectual exercises, but no one ever changes anyone else's mind.

That is very true. The debaters are usually too entrenched in their own ideas, but some in the "crowd" may be on the fence or just new to the subject. It's better to get both sides, and go from there, than to only get one view.

Those who take part in the argument get the opportunity to refine there ideas, having other people challenge you is a great way to improve your own position. I want people to find the holes in my argument.
If you can't defend you position well enough then, you might change it, but mostly people default to the, 'cause I said so' rational.

The only politician I've seen in 20 years who seems to say what he really thinks is Ron Paul, and he's got a snowball's chance in Texas of getting elected.

It snows in Texas like once every 7 years or so. :o

Shaolin Wookie

06-07-2007, 08:03 PM

Go back and read the first bit of my first post on this thread... good, now that we are in agreement, let's continue.

Why is it looking for short-answer conclusions? It's the central question to reality:

Why is there something instead of nothing at all?

The time-frame is irrelevant. In a linear universe one action is preceeded by another: cause--->effect

If we live in a linear universe there must be an original cause. Otherwise the universe cannot be linear. Right?

Actually, causal theory does not require an original cause. It merely anticipates an effect from a cause. Each cause must have a cause. It does not imply one original cause, and it never will. It only anticipates a cause before that cause.

Your reasoning is in itself flawed. You say, all causes have causes. There must be an original cause. Well, in order for there to be an original cause, and in order for it to qualify has a cause, your own position on the issue demands a cause before the original cause, or else this does not qualify as an original cause. But an original cause that has been caused? Cannot be. You substitute, instead, an original cause that has not been caused....and therefore is not a cause. The entire logic of this line of questioning is self-contradictory. You question infinite causation, yet offer up as an alternative an infinite being. It's two methods of describing one thing, only you're giving a chain of causation (hence, of being) a personality, and demanding it to be the "big cheese," thereby putting something unecessary into a logical formulation of causation.

This is why it is short answer reasoning. You've cut out the substance of causual theory, the very definition of it, then used it against its own functional compatability.

As for string theory.....it's too complicated for a web board, and it isn't my bread and butter (I'm studying it, but I don't understand it on a skilled level). I can't think of a way to simplify it, but I'll give it a shot. The fabric of existence, on a very magnified microscopic, subatomic scale, consists of little vibrating threads, which are spread through the 11 or so dimensions of existence. They can interact, stretch, etc., but they're tiny things that atoms are made of. They can stretch into circular "branes".....

Nevermind...it can't be done shorthand. I'll leave it to the pros. Go buy a string theory book. I'm still working my brain around it...

Look, I hate to say that we're describing the same thing, because one side uses psychology and emotion, and the other reasons from what's at hand without "adding" superfluous supernatural beings into the equation.

But we are describing the same thing. The universe is one thing. It is all things. In the Taoist sense, it is one and the myriad. It is all things, it is one thing. It is all energy, it is all matter. It is the vast enormity of space and time, and it is the monkey flinging poo at the other monkey. It is also the poo. Thanks to E=MC2, we know that energy and mass are the same thing. Since all matter has mass, we know we can turn matter (substance) into energy, and energy into substance. The quantities of energy and mass/matter in the universe never increases or decreases. It all moves in cycles. Very Yin and Yang.

Modern day spiritualists will therefore say: religion described this same type of thing for thousands of years, so this evidence strengthens their conclusions.

Wrong. I only agree on a secular level (such as secular buddhism or taoism....which does exist). Spiritualized and supernatural religion, however, described something roughly similar, but then peopled the heavens with larger-than-life people who represented traits of nature and existence.....Zeus, Yahweh/Allah/Christ, and (to quote Grizzly Man) "little Hindu floaty thingies...." hahaha....

It's not the same thing. One does not require the anthropocentric personification of universal traits. One does.

Think more of the Tao te Ching and Shaolin Chan Buddhism (Bodhidharma): The way (Taoist) or true being (SCB) is the nature of the self without thought and reflection. Hence, Zen meditation. What is this natural being? It is natural being....that which is instinctual. What is instinctual? It is our animalistic tendencies. The unlearned behaviors. But learning behaviors is natural for humans.

This non-discursive, non-linear method of thinking (I'm still not sure I get what that even means, because it doesn't make much sense [and sounds like the quantum non-locality jargon that was picked up by postmodern sophists]) is unnatural, and is a byproduct of retrospect. This is the world of the mind, where the mind becomes the point of projection, and man is the measure. The moment you begin to meditate or clear your mind (hell, we're all martial artists, and this is relevant to us all), you silence that voice, and dispel the point of projection world of the mind. No longer is man the measure. There is the world, and your stillness with it. The mind controls us. We can't help it. Evolution engineered us that way for survival. The very reason we drill our forms repeatedly is to make the motions natural. Can we do this? Yes, our minds can be reprogrammed to make certain motions instinctual. This is an element of control, for a short while. but after so many rounds of a form, you cease to think. Your form has become your instinct. But it did so by deviating from "natural being".

Think about yourself biologically. When I'm sick, I think, I (my body, spirit, etc.) is sick.l This sickness isn't "me", though. It is a defect in one of the billions of organisms that comprises my body. I have red and white blood cells, platelets, and organs, to name a few. They all have a function. But say, evolution (interited traits) by way of genetic mutation leaves me with sickle cell anemia....my red blood cells act in a way that is contrary to my well-being....well, I (my conciousness) isn't sick. My red blood cells malfunction. Everything else might work perfectly, but if one part in the cogs and gears of my body blows out, I can die or get very ill. Those red blood cells aren't even "mine." My mind works that way, because the mind is the consummate conscious faculty of the human body. "I" have no say whatsoever in what my cells do. I can regulate my breathing by holding my breath, sure. But when I pass out, what happens? The lungs start working again. I cannot stop my heart. I can hold my bladder, but sooner or later it's going to flush itself regardless of my will.

What is "I" or "me"?

It is the thing, the sanity, "the team spirit", if you will, required by a team of small organisms and collected tissues that work together for mutual benefit. Even so, however, the body is not harmonious. Oftentimes, the body works against itself to derive benifit from certain actions. But "my" body heals itself. "My" body keeps itself functioning. "My" body supplies my brain and heart with oxygen and blood--both things necessary for conscious power. The "me" in this equation doesn't mean much. "I" am merely responsible for keeping the entire mechanism safe on a macroscopic scale, so that it doesn't get devoured by another "team" of microscopic organisms somewhere else on earth.

I don't know where I'm going with this, at this point, because I'm tired and I want to go to bed. I'll finish this weekend.

Crushing Fist

06-07-2007, 09:57 PM

Actually, causal theory does not require an original cause. It merely anticipates an effect from a cause. Each cause must have a cause. It does not imply one original cause, and it never will. It only anticipates a cause before that cause.

There seems to be a miscommunication here. I agree with this, and it is the reason I say that a linear universe makes no sense. That is exactly the point I was getting at which you just made. Whatever can be pointed as an "original cause" must itself be caused by something preceeding it ... in a linear universe.

Your reasoning is in itself flawed. You say, all causes have causes. There must be an original cause. Well, in order for there to be an original cause, and in order for it to qualify has a cause, your own position on the issue demands a cause before the original cause, or else this does not qualify as an original cause. But an original cause that has been caused? Cannot be.

This is my point, if a rather long and twisted way to say it. I'll boil it down a little more into:

A linear universe is incompatible with causal theory.

I don't doubt causal relationships, so I must doubt the linear nature of reality.

You substitute, instead, an original cause that has not been caused....and therefore is not a cause. The entire logic of this line of questioning is self-contradictory. You question infinite causation, yet offer up as an alternative an infinite being. It's two methods of describing one thing, only you're giving a chain of causation (hence, of being) a personality, and demanding it to be the "big cheese," thereby putting something unecessary into a logical formulation of causation.

"I" do? Or are you speaking generally? I have clearly identified myself as an atheist here. The closest thing to a "God" I can imagine, or be interested in, is Azathoth. :cool:

As for string theory.....it's too complicated for a web board, and it isn't my bread and butter (I'm studying it, but I don't understand it on a skilled level). I can't think of a way to simplify it, but I'll give it a shot. The fabric of existence, on a very magnified microscopic, subatomic scale, consists of little vibrating threads, which are spread through the 11 or so dimensions of existence. They can interact, stretch, etc., but they're tiny things that atoms are made of. They can stretch into circular "branes".....

Sounds a little too close to "Prime Matter" for me ::cough cough changing subject to EE cough cough::

Also, that doesn't look like any linear universe I've seen.

Look, I hate to say that we're describing the same thing, because one side uses psychology and emotion, and the other reasons from what's at hand without "adding" superfluous supernatural beings into the equation.

That's an odd thing to hate. Especially since I'm on the same side of that fence as you.

But we are describing the same thing. The universe is one thing. It is all things. In the Taoist sense, it is one and the myriad. It is all things, it is one thing. It is all energy, it is all matter. It is the vast enormity of space and time, and it is the monkey flinging poo at the other monkey. It is also the poo. Thanks to E=MC2, we know that energy and mass are the same thing. Since all matter has mass, we know we can turn matter (substance) into energy, and energy into substance. The quantities of energy and mass/matter in the universe never increases or decreases. It all moves in cycles. Very Yin and Yang.

Oh did you just say 'cycles'. Sorry I got lost in that twisted mass of thoughts up there ;)

Yes... cycles.

Now we are getting focused.

Modern day spiritualists will therefore say: religion described this same type of thing for thousands of years, so this evidence strengthens their conclusions.

Wrong. I only agree on a secular level (such as secular buddhism or taoism....which does exist). Spiritualized and supernatural religion, however, described something roughly similar, but then peopled the heavens with larger-than-life people who represented traits of nature and existence.....Zeus, Yahweh/Allah/Christ, and (to quote Grizzly Man) "little Hindu floaty thingies...." hahaha....

It's not the same thing. One does not require the anthropocentric personification of universal traits. One does.

I take it you are not much of one for poetry?

Think more of the Tao te Ching and Shaolin Chan Buddhism (Bodhidharma): The way (Taoist) or true being (SCB) is the nature of the self without thought and reflection. Hence, Zen meditation. What is this natural being? It is natural being....that which is instinctual. What is instinctual? It is our animalistic tendencies. The unlearned behaviors. But learning behaviors is natural for humans.

Learning behaviors is natural for every animal with a somewhat developed nervous system. Thinking about them, worrying over them, developing a sense of personal identity about them (ego) these are the things which make us "human" for better or worse. What the taoist and zen monks were saying is that these type of thoughts interfere with the clarity of perception, with being here now.

Learning behaviors is hindered by the internal dialogue. Shut off the voice... look... listen... observe. (how many times have I said something similar to a white belt!) When you are engaged in doing something you aren't thinking about it with dialogue.

This non-discursive, non-linear method of thinking (I'm still not sure I get what that even means, because it doesn't make much sense [and sounds like the quantum non-locality jargon that was picked up by postmodern sophists]) is unnatural, and is a byproduct of retrospect. This is the world of the mind, where the mind becomes the point of projection, and man is the measure. The moment you begin to meditate or clear your mind (hell, we're all martial artists, and this is relevant to us all), you silence that voice, and dispel the point of projection world of the mind. No longer is man the measure. There is the world, and your stillness with it. The mind controls us. We can't help it. Evolution engineered us that way for survival. The very reason we drill our forms repeatedly is to make the motions natural. Can we do this? Yes, our minds can be reprogrammed to make certain motions instinctual. This is an element of control, for a short while. but after so many rounds of a form, you cease to think. Your form has become your instinct. But it did so by deviating from "natural being".

Your natural being is to learn through repetition. That is natural.

I think you are wrong about the mind controlling us, but perhaps we merely differ in semantics. First we would have say what we mean by "mind" and "us",what is "us" that is seperate from "mind"

IMO, that which is controling "us" is not the mind, "we are" the mind.

The "mind" is the plaything of the body.

Think about yourself biologically. When I'm sick, I think, I (my body, spirit, etc.) is sick.l This sickness isn't "me", though. It is a defect in one of the billions of organisms that comprises my body. I have red and white blood cells, platelets, and organs, to name a few. They all have a function. But say, evolution (interited traits) by way of genetic mutation leaves me with sickle cell anemia....my red blood cells act in a way that is contrary to my well-being....well, I (my conciousness) isn't sick. My red blood cells malfunction. Everything else might work perfectly, but if one part in the cogs and gears of my body blows out, I can die or get very ill. Those red blood cells aren't even "mine." My mind works that way, because the mind is the consummate conscious faculty of the human body. "I" have no say whatsoever in what my cells do. I can regulate my breathing by holding my breath, sure. But when I pass out, what happens? The lungs start working again. I cannot stop my heart. I can hold my bladder, but sooner or later it's going to flush itself regardless of my will.

I think you might be surprised at the level of control the "mind" (will) can exert over the body, given enough time and training. When you excercise, have you ever continued on through the pain, despite your body screaming at you? You may not be able to stop your heart, but is is fairly easy to learn to control it's rate, especially given a good feedback loop. The same goes for body temperature, even the electrical resistance of the skin... bio-feedback loops do wonders for learning more detailed internal control. ::cough cough ho tien chi cough cough::

Basically, we are highly advanced bacteria living in a symbiotic colony that has developed a sense of "individuality in order to better suit the needs of the group.

We are legion.

What is "I" or "me"?

It is the thing, the sanity, "the team spirit", if you will, required by a team of small organisms and collected tissues that work together for mutual benefit. Even so, however, the body is not harmonious. Oftentimes, the body works against itself to derive benifit from certain actions. But "my" body heals itself. "My" body keeps itself functioning. "My" body supplies my brain and heart with oxygen and blood--both things necessary for conscious power. The "me" in this equation doesn't mean much. "I" am merely responsible for keeping the entire mechanism safe on a macroscopic scale, so that it doesn't get devoured by another "team" of microscopic organisms somewhere else on earth.

The mind is the plaything of the body.

We are legion.

Shaolin Wookie

06-08-2007, 01:34 AM

Wierdo.....:D

Shaolin Wookie

06-09-2007, 06:21 AM

There seems to be a miscommunication here. I agree with this, and it is the reason I say that a linear universe makes no sense. .

It was late that night, and I was exhausted. I thought I was actually replying to Scott Brown.

My bad.

Shaolin Wookie

06-09-2007, 06:36 AM

That is very true. The debaters are usually too entrenched in their own ideas, but some in the "crowd" may be on the fence or just new to the subject. It's better to get both sides, and go from there, than to only get one view.

Those who take part in the argument get the opportunity to refine there ideas, having other people challenge you is a great way to improve your own position. I want people to find the holes in my argument.
If you can't defend you position well enough then, you might change it, but mostly people default to the, 'cause I said so' rational.
o

Exactly, but we shouldn't just argue to strengthen and entrench ourselves in a position. Hell, Scott's got me thinking over a couple of issues on his terms right now. Arguing isn't about winning...that's a debate. Arguing is learning by questioning.

Anyways, I'm reading these two books right now: Cosilience, and Endless Universe. The former is about unifying humanities and sciences (don't know much about it, but it was obviously poignant enough for Stephen Jay Gould to write a book contrary to it), and the latter is about using superstring theory to describe a universe that was caused by another universe, implying timelessness, etc.

Anyways, there was a quote at the beginning of Consilience (Edward O. Wilson) I dog-eared, because it reminded me of what we're talking about:

"Such, I believe, is the source of the Ionian Enchantment: Preferring a search for objective reality over revelation is another way of satisfying religious hunger. It is an endeavor almost as old as civilization and intertwined with traditional religion, but it follows a very different course--a stoic's creed, an acquired taste, a guidebook to adventure plotted across rough terrain. It aims to save the spirit, not by surrender but by liberation of the human mind. Its central tenet, as Einstein knew, is the unification of knowledge. When we have unified enough certain knowledge, we will understand who we are and why we are here.

"If those committed to the quest fail, they will be forgiven. When lost, they will find another way. The moral imperative of humanism is the endeavor alone, whether successful or not, provided the effort is honorable and failure memorable. The ancient Greeks expressed the idea in a myth of vaulting ambition. Daedalus escapes from Crete with his son Icarus on wings he has fashioned from feathers and wax. Ignoring the warnings of his father, Icarus flies toward the sun, whereupon his wings come apart and he falls into the sea. That is the end of Icarus in the myth. But we are left to wonder: Was he just a foolish boy? Did he pay the price for hubris, for pride in sight of the gods? I like to think that on the contrary his daring represents a saving human grace. And so the great astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar could pay tribute to the spirit of his mentor, Sir Arthur Eddington, by saying: Let us see how high we can fly before the sun melts the wax in our wings."

Scott R. Brown

06-09-2007, 08:01 AM

Hi Shaolin Wookie,

Arguing isn't about winning...that's a debate. Arguing is learning by questioning.

I agree whole-heartedly, which is why I appreciate your continued participation in this discussion!

Actually, causal theory does not require an original cause. It merely anticipates an effect from a cause. Each cause must have a cause. It does not imply one original cause, and it never will. It only anticipates a cause before that cause.
There must be an original cause. Well, in order for there to be an original cause, and in order for it to qualify has a cause, …the issue demands a cause before the original cause, or else this does not qualify as an original cause.

But an original cause that has been caused? Cannot be. You substitute, instead, an original cause that has not been caused....and therefore is not a cause. The entire logic of this line of questioning is self-contradictory. You question infinite causation, yet offer up as an alternative an infinite being. It's two methods of describing one thing, only you're giving a chain of causation (hence, of being) a personality, and demanding it to be the "big cheese," thereby putting something unecessary into a logical formulation of causation.

In regards to causal theory, this only applies to a linear universe. We don’t actually know if the universe is linear of not. It may appear linear, but it is possible this view is incorrect and some physicists have postulated this. I contend that the universe “appears” linear because of the manner in which our minds are conditioned to perceive in the material universe, but that is for another discussion.

The original cause may cause itself, hence the name “Self-Existent One". How this would be accomplished is a mystery.

I will elaborate now on a comment from my previous post:

For anything to exist it must be perceivable in some manner. This is self-evident since to demonstrate/validate that a thing exists it must be perceived. We cannot demonstrate something exists that is not at least in some manner perceivable because if it cannot be perceived it cannot be demonstrated to exist. Therefore, we cannot demonstrate anything to exist that is not perceivable.

So:

1) Everything that exists is perceivable.

2) There must be “Something” that perceives in order to perceive that which is perceivable.

3) The “Something” that perceives we call Mind.

4) Everything that is perceivable, then, is perceived by Mind.

5) Since Mind perceives and what exists must be perceivable, Mind must exists and is perceivable.

6) What is it that perceives Mind? Since it is Mind that perceives, it is Mind that perceives Mind.

7) But where did this “Mind that perceives Mind” come from? It was either created or it was not created. If “Mind that perceives Mind” was created, whatever it was that created it either exists or it doesn’t exist. If it doesn’t exist, how can it create that which does exist? How can we say it created anything since it doesn’t exist? Therefore, we must conclude that, that which created “Mind that perceives Mind” exists!

8) Since whatever created “Mind that perceives Mind” exists, it must be perceivable. Since it is perceivable there must be a Mind that perceives it!

9) If that which created “Mind that perceives Mind” exists, what is it that perceives it? Remember, in order for something to exist it must be perceivable and in order for it to be perceivable there must be something to perceive it! So what perceives that which created “Mind that perceives Mind”?

10) Since it is Mind that perceives and since that which created “Mind that perceives Mind” must be perceived, it must be perceived by Mind.

11) We must conclude one of two things, there is an infinite regression of “Somethings” that create “Minds that perceive Mind” and that each of these “Somethings” are perceived by co-existing Mind (For without a Mind to perceive it, it couldn’t exist), or that the creator of “Mind that perceives Mind” perceives itself and this perception of itself is what creates itself; it is a “Self-Existent Mind”!

12) Therefore the only conclusion we may come to is there is simply ONE “Mind that perceives Mind” and it creates itself through its perception of itself! That is, it is an act of Mind perceiving Mind that creates Mind! Mind and perception of Mind are mutually arising; each is a product of the other. Mind is the essence, the substance, the body, and knowledge of itself, perception, is its action. Mind creates Mind out of itself by perceiving itself!

13) Since Mind creates Mind and nothing exists without Mind, everything is a creation of Mind. Therefore it isn’t the Mind that is the plaything of the Body; it is the Body that is the plaything of the Mind! The body holds receptors that transfer information about the material world to the Mind. Without Mind to do the perceiving the material world does not exist. This is because if there is nothing to perceive phenomena, phenomena cannot be demonstrated to exist. If phenomena cannot be demonstrated to exist, they in essence, do not exist. For phenomena to exist they must affect Mind, if phenomena do not affect mind, they cannot exist. Therefore, Mind is the creator of all things that exist.

This non-discursive, non-linear method of thinking (I'm still not sure I get what that even means, because it doesn't make much sense [and sounds like the quantum non-locality jargon that was picked up by postmodern sophists]) is unnatural, and is a byproduct of retrospect.

You do not understand it because it is apparently a new concept to you and you have not yet tried to understand it. If you do not try to experience it directly it is unlikely you will understand it. Although it does occur spontaneously, few people understand what has occurred or even recognize it. It is a direct experience. It is not something that can be argued, reasoned, or measured. You either understand it or you don’t? Just as happiness must be directly experienced in order to understand, non-discursive thought must be directly apprehended. Just as you will never understand the taste of an orange unless you eat one, you will never understand non-discursive thought until you experience it and recognize the experience.

It is possible you have had a similar experience and have not recognized it as non-discursive thought. It depends upon the quality of your artistic experience. Creative individuals such as poets, musicians, artists, etc. experience non-discursive thought when a creative inspiration occurs. It is the translation of inspiration into its physical expression that is the mind translating non-discursive thought into discursive thought. Non-discursive thought is intangible, discursive thought is tangible. Words are discursive, images are discursive, etc.

The next time you experience a creative inspiration try to reflect and observe how this inspiration was originally apprehended. It begins as a non-formed, that is, formless, “feeling”, NOT emotion, in the mind. This “feeling” is a creative knowing that you want to express. It does not occur in a linear manner as words or images. It must be translated into linear/discursive form by the mind.

When an artist is inspired, but is having difficulty expressing it, it is because his mind is having difficulty translating a formless thought (feeling) into a discursive (material) expression. Once you are able to perceive non-discursive thought in a creative endeavor, then with introspective practice you will discover that all your thoughts originate as non-discursive thought.

Because we are so accustomed to translating our non-discursive thoughts into discursive thoughts during our daily lives we do not notice the process. It is because we have been conditioned since birth to translate formless thought into discursive thought that it occurs seamlessly and this is what makes it difficult to experience directly. We must re-condition our mind to introspect into itself and observe the process directly. This takes practice.

The non-discursive mind is discussed quite well in D.T. Suzuki’s book, “The Zen Doctrine of No-Mind”.

Shaolin Wookie

06-09-2007, 08:24 AM

These preconceived notions filter reality/experience for us and therefore we only perceive what we want to or expect to perceive and not what is actually occurring.[/color]

Actually, this statement is false.(:D, friggin' Epimenides) I constantly probe into things that we would consider unreasonable. If we only stand in the foosteps of our forebears, we'd never strike out on a path that might prove a fantastic shorcut. Anyways, in college I was working out an elaborate theory about a shrinking universe, as opposed to a constantly expanding one. If everything in the universe were in fact collapsing, it would appear that things were moving away from each other, according to the dictates of relativity. This was nothing more than a thought experiment I created (not a particularly good one). I discussed it with my Advanced Physics professor, not as something academic, but as an thought experiment, to see if it could be justified, and he pointed me to a paper someone had already written on this subject. It was called a Theory of Shrinkage. I really don't consider it much of a theory (it was mostly to kill some time and exercise brain cells), but it's fun to reason outside the lines--and someone had done it already on a much, much larger scale. Sometimes great insights into the nature of the universe are done this way.....like imagining we're riding a light wave from a prominent clocktower, and imagining what we'd see....wink wink.... You'll probably wind up wrong, but you might just learn something by mucking about. It helped me understand some of the more difficult concepts in relativity.

As for non-discursive thinking, is this the kind of perception by way of intuition lauded by some Neo-Platonists, or their religious peers in gnosticism? If so, it's kind of like Zen, in that you have to be in the present with the thought pattern, and it is therefore self defeating. You can't say that you're experiencing god, for arguing this internally is a method of identification and justification, both of which are attributes of discursive thinking, right? I think this is what you mean by the orange-tasting. You have to experience it to know it. But your mind is reacting to a stimulus, prompted by nerves and sense, and therefore you must perceive by way of reason and order. What happens when you experience something new? You relate it to other things already perceived. There are many fruits and meats, sounds and sights, that I have yet to experience. But when I experience them, I identify them: are they sweet or sour? Loud or soft? Sharp or flat? Bright or dark?

Nobody can remember the first five or so years of life. Perhaps the most important reason for this is that one has no notions of what life is like, or has parallels for experience by way of reference. One is building up a bank of information by which one with judge the rest of life's experiences. By the time one has the ability to cross-reference certain types of data, one can begin to record what is germane to identity and self-preservation, because one has established the minimum requirements for self-identity and self-preservation. One of these requirements is the ability to fend for oneself, on a most basic level. I really don't see how you or I can defend non-discursive thought after the establishment of identity. Everything is now subject to self. Meaning, of course, you can't tap into my non-discursive thought; there were some sects of gnosticism and neo-platonism that actually thought everyone shared consciousness in this non-discursive realm. A statement actually discursive in nature. Knowledge of others, of self, is implicit in this experience.

If so, you're describing the Tao. The tao cannot be spoken. Therefore it has no place in any argument, and you can't use it at all intellectually or reasonably. You can't cite it as evidence for god. You can only experience it. And it is a dumb (meaning, silent, not stupid) experience. It is, in fact, nothing, in the discursive (objective) world, and even in the non-discursive one.

There are numerous examples available to demonstrate scientists are affected by this limitation as well. Subjects they consider closed, thinking they are fully understood, are examples of closed mindedness that affects their ability to explore beyond what they consider reasonable.

I will not concede this point (said with a great deal of irony, as it were). "Scientists" (those who seek knowledge, and know things) are never closeminded. They stand on the shoulders of their forebears so that they might see just a little ****her. Closeminded scientists do not know much. They only know things already known. This might describe students, and some teachers, but rarely practitioners. It's why there's so few successful practitioners, and why we ought to really appreciate them all the more. I had a mentor in the Physics dept. at UGA (before dropping my third major:o to graduate on time [late, actually] and because I'd used all the money the Hope Scholarship was willing to grant) that willingly admitted he had many identities all throughout parallel universes, all copies of himself, infinitely varied, infinitely arranged, whihc perceive everything in every manner it can be perceived.

Closeminded, my ass.:D

In like kind, the KNOWING we obtain of God/Tao occurs in the experience itself.

Alright.

What is this God you experience in itself?
What is God?
What is itself?
What is this experience?
Can you experience God without using discursive thought to identify it?
Can you experience God without using a language to describe it?
If you know this God in the experience, how do you know which one you're experiencing?
Couldn't it be Zeus, Satan, or yourself, perhaps?
How do you define experience?

If you can answer any of these questions, you have not perceived god non-discursively.......

Or more importantly, you have imposed discursive preconceptions onto non-discursive experiences. Therefore, you have not expeirenced or perceived god. You have hijacked non-discursive experience for theistic ends and means, jumping on the old gnostic/neo-platonic bandwagon which was abandoned for this same reason.

You cannot experience God non-discursively. You can only perceive (i.e. be the pawn of certain stimuli). This is not god. It is, as a matter of course, nothing.

It's actually Zen.

I return you to the example of happiness and the orange. The description is NOT the thing itself. A description of the experience does not GIVE you the experience. A description is merely an inadequate indication of what the direct experience is LIKE not what it IS! .

You've experienced what God is through non-discursive experience. You've described what god is like using discursive language. But God is something established discursively. You've experienced nothing except perception, but you've tagged god onto it unneccesarily, and actually deified perception (hence, your senses and your consciousness).

I understand. I am constantly blown away by the power and absolute genius of the mind's framework.

God/Tao exists because he has knowledge/sentience or himself! Others are NOT a necessity!

Still self-defeating.

Since the mind’s function is thought, thought will occur; we just do not know how thought would be manifested. Once discursive thought occurs there is subject and object and the mind is free to create its own world of separate phenomena.

LEt's say I've never eaten an orange (using your argument). I decide to get direct experience of this orange. Unfortunately, I've just come from the dentist, and a shot of novacaine has numbed my mouth entirely. Not only that, but my tongue's taste receptors were damaged long ago, and I can't taste anything. My sense of smell was damaged as well during an apartment fire several years back. I cannot feel anything in my mouth, tounge, teeth, flesh, food, I cannot taste, and I cannot smell. The only indication that I can have that I have eaten anything is by feeling the orange with my hands to note an increase in its absence, or by seeing its slow disappearance. Now, I put this orange into my mouth. I don't taste it or feel it. I chew, but I can't feel myself chewing, because I can't feel the muscles moving. I can verify I've chewed it by the fact I don't choke, and I feel it slide easily down my throat (where senses come back into the equation). According to non-discursive notions of direct experience, I've experienced nothing, and I have not stored up any direct knowledge of the action at hand. I have no reference whatsoever to justify this experience. I cannot describe it. I don't know the experience. I don't even know what it's like.

Now lets assume I'm paralyzed completely, and can't feel anything. I'm also blind. You chop off my leg silently. I'll never know it's gone.

Sense perception determines everything we know. A human born in the wild with little or no contact with other humans has no theology. Discursive thought gives us the ability to think abstractly, by reasoning our way from structure to less structure. But non-discursive thought is predicated upon discursive thinking--hence your ability to remember and recall and describe these experiences of god, as opposed to the young child you cannot remember being. Once the self has developed ( a thing which our mind renders inevitable), non-discursive thinking is null and void, except as small reprieves from thought.

Hence, Zen.

Theology and non-discursive thought actually seem mutually exclusive to me.

Shaolin Wookie

06-09-2007, 08:33 AM

You do not understand it because it is apparently a new concept to you and you have not yet tried to understand it. If you do not try to experience it directly it is unlikely you will understand it.

Actually, I understand it, but I've never heard it described using that particular pairing of words.

I've experienced it. I've experienced the experience of experiencing it. I used different words to describe it, and so did others.

Why do I have to try to understand this non-discursive thinking? Isn't this self-defeating? If I must try, I impose will on something that is supposed to be without the taint of self.

You're now just describing psychological conditioning. I can condition myself to think the way that you're thinking. My mind is my own canvas. I can paint whatever picture I like.

Shaolin Wookie

06-09-2007, 08:41 AM

The next time you experience a creative inspiration try to reflect and observe how this inspiration was originally apprehended. It begins as a non-formed, that is, formless, “feeling”, NOT emotion, in the mind. This “feeling” is a creative knowing that you want to express. It does not occur in a linear manner as words or images. It must be translated into linear/discursive form by the mind.

When an artist is inspired, but is having difficulty expressing it, it is because his mind is having difficulty translating a formless thought (feeling) into a discursive (material) expression. Once you are able to perceive non-discursive thought in a creative endeavor, then with introspective practice you will discover that all your thoughts originate as non-discursive thought. .

I am curious to know if you are an artist or a poet. I'm an artist. I am also curious to know if the person who may have suggested his sentiment was an artist or a poet.

I don't agree with this sentiment at all. Some artists and poets might. Inspiration isn't something plucked out of thin air. It's the result of direct experience, which triggers memory, which triggers a creative response. Artists with dick in experience are usually very poor ones. Just as martial artists with now contact experience for technique application are generally very poor ones.

Scott R. Brown

06-09-2007, 11:48 AM

I wrote:

These preconceived notions filter reality/experience for us and therefore we only perceive what we want to or expect to perceive and not what is actually occurring.

Actually, this statement is false.

No, this is not false it is actually pretty well established.

This principle is a bit difficult to grasp if one is not familiar with it. I will try to explain it in more detail.

We each have a perspective from which we view the world. This perspective is a type of filter that is created by what we accept as “truth” about reality. As an example, some Christians accept the Bible as the “literal” inerrant word of God (Many Muslims believe the same about the Quran.). This acceptance creates a filter through which all phenomena will be filtered. All experiences are measured against these foundational principles that are accepted as true about reality and this measurement influences the interpretation of the phenomenon. When information occurs that conflicts with a preconception the mind/ego will do one of three things:

1) Deny or Ignore the conflicting information is real or has occurred,
2) Redefine/Re-interpret the conflicting information in order to allow it to be artificially conformed to the pre-existing world-view/reality-view,
3) Re-evaluate their pre-existing world-view and change it in order to integrate the new information.

You, I and everyone are afflicted with this same characteristic of mind. We have a perspective with which we view reality. This reality is founded upon what we accept as “true” about reality. While we may try to be open-minded to ideas that conflict with our personal perspective, this “open-mindedness” is itself a preconceived notion and influences how we interpret reality. Even the practice of objectivity occurs from a preconceived notion that all experience is more accurately interpreted through objectivity. Since this view/belief/perspective of objectivity occurs within our minds as the interpretative function of stimuli/phenomena it filters what we perceive according to our ability to apply the principle.

One of the flaws of objectivity is that it does not fully inform us concerning any phenomenon. This is because phenomena are experienced subjectively first. Subjectivity is the mental interpretation of experience and any phenomenon that is “seemingly” experienced strictly from the objective perspective is only a partial experience of the phenomenon. It filters out experiences that it determines are false or inconsequential and thereby limits the totality of the experience. Objectivity only permits us to experience a phenomenon partially. If we only experience a partial aspect of a phenomenon how can we say we have a full understanding of its reality? We cannot, all we can say is we experience a part of its objective reality. We may only say it is part of its objective reality because we cannot know what we are not allowing ourselves to perceive concerning it because perceptions are filtered by the mind.

In truth objectivity is merely a specific aspect of subjectivity. There is really no such thing as absolute objectivity, for all life is perception and all perceptions are experienced and all experiences are known by our interpretation of them and this interpretation occurs in the mind and the mind is interprets experience according to its preconceived notions. These preconceived notions filter the perception according to its inherent limits. Anyone who thinks they are completely objective about anything are fooling themselves and demonstrating their inherent subjective nature by not being able to perceive their own subjectivity. Their preconceived notion about their own objectivity filters all their perceptions in a subjective sense and does not allow them to recognize the inherent subjective nature of their mind and all perceptions.

The Rorschach ink blots are a good example of how the mind filters its reality from preconceived notions. Rorschach ink blots are black ink blots on a white background. Each blot occurs “seemingly” without a context; (Although in my experience they are all bilaterally symmetrical which is a context.) What the observer perceives in the blots occurs in the mind and is projective upon the blots. There is no inherent recognizable morphological structural context in the blots. The mind projects structure onto the relatively chaotic blots in order to make sense out of them. This sense occurs from preconceive notions that occur within the mind.

I will use a personal experience as another example: On one occasion I was driving at night on a dark and secluded road. I saw a brown “something” moving across the road in my headlights. I believed I was seeing a deer that had just been hit by the car just in front of me. As I passed the object I realized it was a brown paper bag. At first I observed the object without a complete context so my mind projected its “best” assessment of what it was and I thought I was observing a floundering deer. As I approached closer I was able to perceive more detail and discerned the object was in fact a brown paper bag. It is immaterial what the object actually was in this example; the point of the example is to demonstrate how the mind will project onto objects from its preconceived notions according to a context.

A third example is when we lose something in our home. We often spend quite some time looking for the item and cannot find it. We will look here and there and everywhere and cannot find the object. After some time passes we may once again look in some of the places we have already looked and the object is found in one of these places in plain view. It is not that the object wasn’t there the first time we looked, the object was ALWAYS there and we looked right at it, but our mind did not allow us to perceive it. A condition of mind influenced us to not perceive what was openly apparent. This is subjectivity in action.

Nobody can remember the first five or so years of life.

This is not true. I have close to a dozen memories, all of them prior to age 5 and many of them from ages 1 ½ to 2 ½ years of age. Two of them involve moral judgments and at least two of them involved reasoning to accomplish a goal.

1) About age 1 ½, I played hide and seek with my Aunt on the boardwalk in Santa Barbara, I was hiding behind the palm trees.

2) Between 1 ½ and 2 ½ walked with my mother to the corner store. It was very small, about ¼ the size or smaller than a traditionally sized 7-11. We were at the checkout and there was a box on the outside of the checkout with a small tootsie roll in it. I remember standing there thinking, “It is in a box clearly meant to be thrown away. Is it stealing if I take the tootsie roll?” to me the tootsie roll would be thrown out anyway, but it might be construed as stealing anyway to I determined it was best not to take it.

3) I remember the day we went to get my mom and my little brother from the hospital when he was born. I was standing on the back seat of the car and looking over the front seat. My mother was sitting in-between my father who was driving and my grandmother on the far right. My brother is two years, 3 months and 3 days younger than me. That made me just over 2 years of age.

4) I remember when my mother took my little brother to show him to a man I didn’t know who was working at the local Standard gas station; I still remember the red flying horse! I wondered why she was showing my brother to this man who was large and balding with blonde hair. It did not seem appropriate to me and there seemed to be an unknown connection between the two. When I was in my mid-thirties my grandmother told me my mother had a brief affair when I was very young. It was at that point that I realize that she had taken my brother to show him to his father. My brother looks nothing like myself or my sister and he does look like the man whose characteristics I remember to this day.

5) Etc. that is enough to demonstrate your assertion is incorrect. Each of these events occurred much closer to age 2 than age 5. These are not events discussed by my family and therefore could not have been transmitted to me later. Two of them I mentioned involved moral judgments arrived at through reasoning.

Scott R. Brown

06-09-2007, 11:49 AM

As for non-discursive thinking, is this the kind of perception by way of intuition lauded by some Neo-Platonists, or their religious peers in gnosticism? If so, it's kind of like Zen, in that you have to be in the present with the thought pattern, and it is therefore self defeating. You can't say that you're experiencing god, for arguing this internally is a method of identification and justification, both of which are attributes of discursive thinking, right? I think this is what you mean by the orange-tasting. You have to experience it to know it. But your mind is reacting to a stimulus, prompted by nerves and sense, and therefore you must perceive by way of reason and order. What happens when you experience something new? You relate it to other things already perceived. There are many fruits and meats, sounds and sights, that I have yet to experience. But when I experience them, I identify them: are they sweet or sour? Loud or soft? Sharp or flat? Bright or dark?

No, this is not intuition. Intuition is a perception that predicts some occurrence in the future. Non-discursive thought occurs prior to discursive thought and is not necessarily involved in any form of precognition. It is closer to “direct perception of thought” as opposed to “direct perception of material experience without discursive comment occurring” in the mind. Discursive thought occurs when we think with words and when we attempt to communicate experiences with others. But inherently we think originally without words, this non-discursive thought I termed the “Fog of Knowing” when I was in my teens. I have just recently begun to refer to it as non-discursive thought.

I am not trying to formulate any argument here to demonstrate it occurs. It does occur and I have experienced it as well as many other individuals. To those with the direct experience there is no need for argument. There is no argument because arguing is like trying to argue for the taste of an orange. There can be no argument. There are only those who have tasted oranges, who know what it tastes like, and there are those who have not tasted an orange, who do not know what it tastes like. Those who haven’t tasted an orange may argue all they like, but they do not know what they are talking about because they have not had the direct experience; they will change their opinion only when they have the direct experience for themselves. For those who have had the experience of non-discursive thought there are only useful expedients used to try to point others to the direct experience. The argument is not the thing itself; it is an attempt to point others towards experiencing the phenomenon for themselves. It is saying what is it “like” and where to look to find it, not what it is!

Yes, the experience is described according to a context, but the description is about what it is LIKE and what it is NOT LIKE, not what it IS. To know what it IS one must experience it directly. The experience is differentiated by what it is contrasted with that is true, but so is all experience. If there were nothing to contrast with there could be no experiences. This is the inherent nature of existence. It is my contention that Many did not “come from” ONE in a linear progression, but that ONE and Many are mutually arising and occur “at once, together, at the same time”, but that is for another discussion.

When tasting an orange it is true the mind is responding to material stimuli, but the perception and interpretation of the stimuli occurs within the mind. It is immaterial whether the stimulus occurs strictly within the mind or via material stimuli, all perception occurs within the mind.

Interpretation of direct experience occurs by way of “reason and order” with is a function of mind. Reason and order are inherent characteristics of mind and there is no separation inherently between the mind and its functions. The separation is an artificial construct that occurs for a specific purpose according to a context, but it is not the essence of mind.

I really don't see how you or I can defend non-discursive thought after the establishment of identity. Everything is now subject to self. Meaning, of course, you can't tap into my non-discursive thought; there were some sects of gnosticism and neo-platonism that actually thought everyone shared consciousness in this non-discursive realm. A statement actually discursive in nature. Knowledge of others, of self, is implicit in this experience.

Non-discursive thought is an inherent quality of mind. We only occasionally refer to it as “occurring” because we must use discursive thought to describe what “occurs” prior to discursive thought and actually there is no “prior to” either. When using discursive thought to communicate non-discursive phenomena it creates confusion and this is the problem with discursive thought. It is also why Ch’an Masters will use actions to demonstrate principles at times.

Non-discursive thought does not occur prior to identity; it is the foundation upon which identity is established. The non-discursive mind is “identity of being” that has not been defined according to a context. In this sense it is somewhat unlimited in potential. This unlimited potential then under goes limitation according to the environment the identity must conform too. There are limitations to intelligence, bodily genetics, learning environment, etc. These limitations form an artificial identity we refer to generally as the ego. The ego is nothing more than an artificial construct “founded upon”/”springing from”/”manifested by” the non-discursive mind. There is no inherent separation between them. The separation is an artificial perception from the perspective of the limited ego, but is an illusion from the perspective of the non-discursive mind. It is a form of pretend, just as an actor may play a part in a drama, yet always inherently remains the actor. One of the qualities of a good actor is their ability to lose themselves within a specific role. If an actor were to lose themselves completely within a role to the extent they cannot separate themselves from it, they would not recognize their actual identity as who they are. This is what happens to humans and their attachment to a transient and artificially constructed ego. They confuse the role they are playing with their inherent identity when in truth, the role they are playing (the ego) is just a game of mind.

If so, you're describing the Tao. The tao cannot be spoken. Therefore it has no place in any argument, and you can't use it at all intellectually or reasonably. You can't cite it as evidence for god. You can only experience it. And it is a dumb (meaning, silent, not stupid) experience. It is, in fact, nothing, in the discursive (objective) world, and even in the non-discursive one.

Tao cannot be comprehensively defined, but it may be pointed too. We know it discursively through its effects upon the material world. If there were no effects to apprehend we could know nothing of it at all. Since we do perceive patterns of phenomena we call “Principles of Tao” we infer its existence and then seek to find methods whereby we may demonstrate its existence for ourselves through directly experience.

It is not evidence of God, it is God in his non-discursive manifestation, which is NOT the defined God of man, but an unlimited being that is self-existent.

I wrote:

There are numerous examples available to demonstrate scientists are affected by this limitation as well. Subjects they consider closed, thinking they are fully understood, are examples of closed mindedness that affects their ability to explore beyond what they consider reasonable.

I will not concede this point (said with a great deal of irony, as it were). "Scientists" (those who seek knowledge, and know things) are never closeminded. They stand on the shoulders of their forebears so that they might see just a little ****her. Closeminded scientists do not know much…

I think I have argued against this view above. The attitude of “not being closed-minded” programs the mind to try to sustain this view. This is one of the qualities of ego. Preconceived attitudes cause the ego to perceive according to the attitude, the attitude becomes a standard against which perceptions are measured and this is a filter regardless of how much we want to pretend it isn’t. Every attitude programs the mind to filter perceptions. Even the attitude of not wanting to be closed-minded and preferring to be open-minded is mental programming that influences the interpretation of perceptions. It cannot be avoided. It is an inherent quality of the discursive mind. The only way to avoid this is to directly experience according to the non-discursive mind with interpretation of the experience. Once we try to communicate or reflect upon the experience it becomes subject to filtering/discursive thought. This filtering is a subjective quality of mind/ego. There is nothing wrong with discursive thought. It exists and is useful according to its proper context, but there are some forms of knowing for which the discursive mind is not suited. It is when the discursive mind seeks to judge/evaluate/critique what is beyond its “proper context”/ability that it falls into error!

I have run out of time. I will have to respond to the rest of your comments later. Hopefully sometime tomorrow morning. I will answer the question in your last post first thought.

I have not had time to review or edit any of this so I will resever the right to clarify confusing statements at a later date.

Shaolin Wookie

06-09-2007, 12:02 PM

I wrote:

These preconceived notions filter reality/experience for us and therefore we only perceive what we want to or expect to perceive and not what is actually occurring.

No, this is not false it is actually pretty well established.

This principle is a bit difficult to grasp if one is not familiar with it. I will try to explain it in more detail.

We each have a perspective from which we view the world. This perspective is a type of filter that is created by what we accept as “truth” about reality. As an example, some Christians accept the Bible as the “literal” inerrant word of God (Many Muslims believe the same about the Quran.). This acceptance creates a filter through which all phenomena will be filtered. All experiences are measured against these foundational principles that are accepted as true about reality and this measurement influences the interpretation of the phenomenon. When information occurs that conflicts with a preconception the mind/ego will do one of three things:

1) Deny or Ignore the conflicting information is real or has occurred,
2) Redefine/Re-interpret the conflicting information in order to allow it to be artificially conformed to the pre-existing world-view/reality-view,
3) Re-evaluate their pre-existing world-view and change it in order to integrate the new information.

You, I and everyone are afflicted with this same characteristic of mind. We have a perspective with which we view reality. This reality is founded upon what we accept as “true” about reality. While we may try to be open-minded to ideas that conflict with our personal perspective, this “open-mindedness” is itself a preconceived notion and influences how we interpret reality. Even the practice of objectivity occurs from a preconceived notion that all experience is more accurately interpreted through objectivity. Since this view/belief/perspective of objectivity occurs within our minds as the interpretative function of stimuli/phenomena it filters what we perceive according to our ability to apply the principle.

One of the flaws of objectivity is that it does not fully inform us concerning any phenomenon. This is because phenomena are experienced subjectively first. Subjectivity is the mental interpretation of experience and any phenomenon that is “seemingly” experienced strictly from the objective perspective is only a partial experience of the phenomenon. It filters out experiences that it determines are false or inconsequential and thereby limits the totality of the experience. Objectivity only permits us to experience a phenomenon partially. If we only experience a partial aspect of a phenomenon how can we say we have a full understanding of its reality? We cannot, all we can say is we experience a part of its objective reality. We may only say it is part of its objective reality because we cannot know what we are not allowing ourselves to perceive concerning it because perceptions are filtered by the mind.

In truth objectivity is merely a specific aspect of subjectivity. There is really no such thing as absolute objectivity, for all life is perception and all perceptions are experienced and all experiences are known by our interpretation of them and this interpretation occurs in the mind and the mind is interprets experience according to its preconceived notions. These preconceived notions filter the perception according to its inherent limits. Anyone who thinks they are completely objective about anything are fooling themselves and demonstrating their inherent subjective nature by not being able to perceive their own subjectivity. Their preconceived notion about their own objectivity filters all their perceptions in a subjective sense and does not allow them to recognize the inherent subjective nature of their mind and all perceptions.

The Rorschach ink blots are a good example of how the mind filters its reality from preconceived notions. Rorschach ink blots are black ink blots on a white background. Each blot occurs “seemingly” without a context; (Although in my experience they are all bilaterally symmetrical which is a context.) What the observer perceives in the blots occurs in the mind and is projective upon the blots. There is no inherent recognizable morphological structural context in the blots. The mind projects structure onto the relatively chaotic blots in order to make sense out of them. This sense occurs from preconceive notions that occur within the mind.

I will use a personal experience as another example: On one occasion I was driving at night on a dark and secluded road. I saw a brown “something” moving across the road in my headlights. I believed I was seeing a deer that had just been hit by the car just in front of me. As I passed the object I realized it was a brown paper bag. At first I observed the object without a complete context so my mind projected its “best” assessment of what it was and I thought I was observing a floundering deer. As I approached closer I was able to perceive more detail and discerned the object was in fact a brown paper bag. It is immaterial what the object actually was in this example; the point of the example is to demonstrate how the mind will project onto objects from its preconceived notions according to a context.

A third example is when we lose something in our home. We often spend quite some time looking for the item and cannot find it. We will look here and there and everywhere and cannot find the object. After some time passes we may once again look in some of the places we have already looked and the object is found in one of these places in plain view. It is not that the object wasn’t there the first time we looked, the object was ALWAYS there and we looked right at it, but our mind did not allow us to perceive it. A condition of mind influenced us to not perceive what was openly apparent. This is subjectivity in action.

This is not true. I have close to a dozen memories, all of them prior to age 5 and many of them from ages 1 ½ to 2 ½ years of age. Two of them involve moral judgments and at least two of them involved reasoning to accomplish a goal.

1) About age 1 ½, I played hide and seek with my Aunt on the boardwalk in Santa Barbara, I was hiding behind the palm trees.

2) Between 1 ½ and 2 ½ walked with my mother to the corner store. It was very small, about ¼ the size or smaller than a traditionally sized 7-11. We were at the checkout and there was a box on the outside of the checkout with a small tootsie roll in it. I remember standing there thinking, “It is in a box clearly meant to be thrown away. Is it stealing if I take the tootsie roll?” to me the tootsie roll would be thrown out anyway, but it might be construed as stealing anyway to I determined it was best not to take it.

3) I remember the day we went to get my mom and my little brother from the hospital when he was born. I was standing on the back seat of the car and looking over the front seat. My mother was sitting in-between my father who was driving and my grandmother on the far right. My brother is two years, 3 months and 3 days younger than me. That made me just over 2 years of age.

4) I remember when my mother took my little brother to show him to a man I didn’t know who was working at the local Standard gas station; I still remember the red flying horse! I wondered why she was showing my brother to this man who was large and balding with blonde hair. It did not seem appropriate to me and there seemed to be an unknown connection between the two. When I was in my mid-thirties my grandmother told me my mother had a brief affair when I was very young. It was at that point that I realize that she had taken my brother to show him to his father. My brother looks nothing like myself or my sister and he does look like the man whose characteristics I remember to this day.

5) Etc. that is enough to demonstrate your assertion is incorrect. Each of these events occurred much closer to age 2 than age 5. These are not events discussed by my family and therefore could not have been transmitted to me later. Two of them I mentioned involved moral judgments arrived at through reasoning.

I agree with all of this in your post, but don't see how it strengthens your argument. Please elaborate. And I would only state I should have said you don't remember much of what you experienced those first 5 years of your life by way of self-identity. After all, we pick up speech with amazing speed, and retain it rather remarkably. I, too, when I think about it, can remember several instances of things only I would know I did between the ages of 2-5 (5 being perhaps too high a number). But you certainly know nothing of that instant you came wriggling from the womb, or those first six months, at the very least.

Scott R. Brown

06-09-2007, 12:05 PM

I am curious to know if you are an artist or a poet. I'm an artist. I am also curious to know if the person who may have suggested his sentiment was an artist or a poet.

I don't agree with this sentiment at all. Some artists and poets might. Inspiration isn't something plucked out of thin air. It's the result of direct experience, which triggers memory, which triggers a creative response. Artists with dick in experience are usually very poor ones. Just as martial artists with now contact experience for technique application are generally very poor ones.

In my younger days I wrote a great deal of poetry. The process I used conformed to my assertion as does the experience of many other artists.

The Greek sense of Muse is nothing more than non-discursive thought. It is knowledge that comes from who knows where and provides inspiration.

I would disagree that inspiration is not plucked out of thin air. To me that is exactly where it originates, as a metaphorical illustration that is. To be sure it involves the interaction of the discursive mind. After all that is what art is in many cases, it is the non-discursive condition being communicated in a discursive manner.

I start with a general sense of structure to what I want to communicate. That would be the context, so perhaps I want to use roses to communicate a feeling or idea. I hold this thought/idea/attitude within my mind and wait for the unconscious inspiration to occur. Once I get the "Fog of Knowing" in my mind, the struggle is to conform the knowing to my preconceive structure. Sometimes the knowing will not confine to the structure in a manner I had anticipated and I must modify my original intent/structure. When this occurs often a unique and more meaningful artistic achievement results.

This is also how I write during discussions like ours. I do not hold all this information in my mind. I set the general idea or concept in my mind and take what comes out inspirationally. It is likely this occurs for you and most others here too, it is just you do not recognize it. You do not recognize it because you have not perceived it directly yet.

One of my purposes in participating in these types of discussions is to challenge the preconceived views of others in a manner that allows them to transcend limited perceptions and conclusions about their reality.

Shaolin Wookie

06-09-2007, 12:43 PM

Yes, the experience is described according to a context, but the description is about what it is LIKE and what it is NOT LIKE, not what it IS. To know what it IS one must experience it directly. The experience is differentiated by what it is contrasted with that is true, but so is all experience. If there were nothing to contrast with there could be no experiences. .

Perhaps this is why I do not understand how you can hold this position, and why I think it is untenable. The very nature of the human comprehension of the world, and the only comprehension we can have of it, is through subjective interpretation. I will often, in my daily routine, think that I experience something objectively. This saves my mind time so that it can focus on other tasks, kind of like jotting down a note in shorthand. I don't necessarily experience objectively. I experience subjectively.

One way to demonstrate this is with a simple elementary particle analogy, which has been on the chopping block in particle physics for a long time: that of the wave/particle duality. By now, everyone has accepted that these particles act as waves and particles. Not everyone will agree that they are both. But they are only one or the other when perceived. The measuring device does not determine the outcome. It only measures the outcome it is suited to measure. We do not know how to track a particle with a phosphor screen that is suited to measuring a wave. But that wave is one aspect of a dually-existent particle. In fact, one measurement seems to exclude the other. But the other measurement excludes this one. Technically, objectively, it's just one thing. But it can be measured in two ways. But it only behaves, once perceived, as one thing....I've lost track of what I was saying.....:D....

Okay. I can perceive a photon as a particle or a wave. I can never perceive the photon. I only know its manifestation. Objectivity, the photon, is the reconciliation of subjective interpretations--the particle or wave. In classical physics, objectivity is the standard. It's why Einstein and Bohm we're such rabid classicists. But according to complementarity (props to my sigs), objectivity is just an interpretation that canvasses several subjective judgments. There are plenty of theories (multi universes, etc.) that support the subjective-only universe.

The weak heel in their stance is that they rely on machines to aid in these measurements, and it may just be (and probably is, IMO) that they don't have the technology to do so.

Even so, interpreting data will always be subjective. But if you have enough subjective information, you can pinpoint what something is, and what something isn't. This gives you a picture of what is objectively there by telling you what you don't have command of subjectively. Once you have enough subjective information, you have objectivity---the very quest of knowledge and science. It will always be subjective, for it was information obtained indivualized increments, but the totality of hte information is indeed objective.

You can only know god by knowing what he is, and what he isn't, both valuations based solely on experience and perception, unless you concdede that god is just the totality of mass and energy (which at temperatures approaching absolute zero are pretty much the same thing), and is just another word for objective existence. Then god is just a poor word choice, because it carries other connotations, and all qualities of god outside of this objective "ideal" (if you will) are a matter of emotional content.

All sentience is excess baggage, and all attributes attributed (redundant, I know) to god are thereby......in excess.

It seems you fall into that trap, that you point out the nature of god as that of existence itself. Objective existence, which can only be interpreted subjectively, but is in fact there. But the moment you've made your point, all of your excess interpretation turns from what is, or likely is, to what you would wish it could be. It seems that the demonstration of god's existence pigeonholes it into such narrow confines and parameters of perception and existence, that any elaboration is in fact talking from one's ass, to put it candidly, and actually bears no resemblance to the thing being described.

If I can train my mind to think non-discursively and therefore prove or disprove the existence of god directly, outline them shortly step-by-step, and will willingly take them to see if it is in fact true.

Crushing Fist

06-09-2007, 05:36 PM

For anything to exist it must be perceivable in some manner. This is self-evident since to demonstrate/validate that a thing exists it must be perceived. We cannot demonstrate something exists that is not at least in some manner perceivable because if it cannot be perceived it cannot be demonstrated to exist. Therefore, we cannot demonstrate anything to exist that is not perceivable.

This is the fundamental error from which most metaphysical philosophy begins.

The error is that for us to know something exists it must be perceivable, but that is not an intrinsic requirement of existence.

1) Everything that exists is perceivable.

This is the first error.

. . . and in order for it to be perceivable there must be something to perceive it!

This is the second error, and perhaps the greater one, that which leads to a backwards conclusion. The idea is that without a mind to observe it, the universe could not "exist". This is quite the reverse of reality. If we consider the matter rationally, it is the mind which is last to appear on the scene, not first.

Since Mind creates Mind and nothing exists without Mind, everything is a creation of Mind. Therefore it isn’t the Mind that is the plaything of the Body; it is the Body that is the plaything of the Mind!

The only thing that can be proven is that Mind creates Mind's impression's of things, not those things themselves. Those impressions are extinguished with Mind, not the actual things. This error is so fundamental that it undermines the entire metaphysical train of thought. Unless we can perceive or observe in some way Mind that is self-existent, without body, this cannot be taken as "truth". Extraordinary claims and so forth.

To my knowledge, no mind has yet been detected which is not part of, and in fact created by, a physical body. Physical bodies are known which have nothing that can honestly be called "Mind" but not the reverse.

To say otherwise is pure sophistry.

It is not something that can be argued, reasoned, or measured. You either understand it or you don’t?

Here I will have to dispute your definition for existence. Instead of being "perceivable" in order for something to be known to exist, it must be measurable. Anything can be perceived, real or otherwise. Perception is a very poor indicator of reality.

I will leave you with a quote:

“A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Crushing Fist

06-09-2007, 06:05 PM

A

Why do I have to try to understand this non-discursive thinking? Isn't this self-defeating?

The Tao that can be known is not the true Tao.

Understanding is it's antithesis.

Scott R. Brown

06-10-2007, 03:00 AM

Hi Crushing Fist,

I wrote:

For anything to exist it must be perceivable in some manner. This is self-evident since to demonstrate/validate that a thing exists it must be perceived. We cannot demonstrate something exists that is not at least in some manner perceivable because if it cannot be perceived it cannot be demonstrated to exist. Therefore, we cannot demonstrate anything to exist that is not perceivable.

This is the fundamental error from which most metaphysical philosophy begins.

The error is that for us to know something exists it must be perceivable, but that is not an intrinsic requirement of existence.

If your assertion is true please formulate an argument that demonstrates it to be true and you have made no argument that demonstrates my argument to be false. Making a statement without a supporting argument is merely an opinion. My comment was part of an overall argument.

To be perceivable IS a requirement for something to exist. I will clarify my statement because I understand it is not quite clear. For something to exist in the material universe it must have qualities that make it perceivable. If it exists and is not perceivable there is no way to demonstrate it exists. If the phenomenon does not affect the material universe in any way it is non-existent. This means the phenomenon must at the very least affect the material universe in some way that indicates it exists and this affect must be a perceivable. Once the phenomenon is perceived or affects the material universe in a perceivable manner then it can be said to exist.

The context for our knowledge is the material universe. Anything outside that context does not exist within the material universe and cannot be said to exist within this context. To me the material universe is the same as the perceivable universe. If something exists beyond the material/perceivable universe and is one day detected then it was always within the perceivable universe and existed.

When I say the phenomenon must be perceivable or measurable that is not to say that it must necessarily be perceived and measured in order to exist, only have that is must have the quality of being able to be perceived, although since existence is Mind all phenomena that exists is known by Mind because it is created by Mind which in this case is the Universal Mind/Tao/God.

Phenomena may exist that are not perceivable by man, but are perceivable by the Universal Mind/Tao/God. This perception is what gives rise to the phenomenon’s existence. Let us imagine I am a potter. I have an idea about a type of pot I want to make. The pot exists originally in my mind as an idea. Once I make the pot it has material form and is measurable by you and may therefore proven to exist. However, the idea for the pot cannot be said to not exist because I perceived it and it affected me through that perception regardless of whether I created the pot or not. I cannot prove to you I had the idea for the pot until I create it and you can measure it through your material reality. However, the pot still existed within my mind first regardless of whether you believe me or not. The proof of it only comes afterwards. Ideas exist because they affect Mind, the material manifestation exists because it affects Mind AND the material universe.

An example of a phenomenon that was perceivable, but not perceived are x-rays. X-rays were not perceivable until 1895. They affected the environment before their discovery, but they were not known and their effects were not perceived or directly measurable, however x-rays have the quality of measurability because they affect the universe through interaction with other phenomena and therefore they exist. The fact they were not directly perceived until 1895 did not make them unperceivable or un-measurable, only unperceived and unmeasured.

If a phenomenon does not affect other phenomena or Mind it cannot exist. If it affects other phenomena or Mind then it has qualities that are perceivable and/or measurable.

I wrote:

1) Everything that exists is perceivable.

This is the first error.

Again, this is an opinion without support. Please demonstrate my comment is incorrect by supporting your position with argument as I have done for mine. Please demonstrate to me ANYTHING that you can PROVE exists without it being perceivable. It cannot be done.

I wrote:

…and in order for it to be perceivable there must be something to perceive it!

This is the second error, and perhaps the greater one, that which leads to a backwards conclusion. The idea is that without a mind to observe it, the universe could not "exist". This is quite the reverse of reality. If we consider the matter rationally, it is the mind which is last to appear on the scene, not first.

You are incorrect here and you cannot demonstrate your conclusion. You can only demonstrate, although you haven’t, that man came late to the party, NOT demonstrate that Mind does not exist or that Mind is not the creator of the material universe, neither can you demonstrate the material universe exists without something to perceive it.

My argument cannot demonstrate Mind to a rational certainty, this is not my purpose, nor have I intended to claim this. My argument does “infer” Universal Mind/Tao/God through rational argument. Universal Mind/Tao/God is beyond reason and the material universe.

If my assertion that Mind creates all things is true, then reason cannot fully explain it because reason is merely a subset of something greater than reason and this has been part of my assertion. Just as the taste of an orange cannot be rationally argued to demonstrate its existence and just as happiness cannot be rationally argued to demonstrate its existence, neither can Mind. My purpose for using taste and happiness as examples is to demonstrate there are phenomena that we accept as true that cannot be proven through rational argument; they must be proven through direct experience. The existence of the experiences of happiness or the taste of an orange by others is not doubted because we have direct experience of them ourselves. Just as the existence of Mind/Tao/God cannot be proven without directly experiencing the fact for ourselves, so we cannot demonstrate that happiness or the taste of an orange exists without directly having the direct experience.

Just because you tell me you are happy does not “prove” to me you are happy. It is an empty claim without evidence to demonstrate it to be true. Even the measurement of the effects of happiness on the body does not prove that happiness is occurring. I only understand your claims of happiness because I have had the direct experience for myself and I recognize your description as a reasonable equivalent to my own experience. Even then I do not KNOW you are happy, I must take your word for it. My acceptance of your claim of happiness is founded upon faith, with no verifiable proof.

If I have never had the experience of happiness and you describe to me your experience of happiness I must again take your word for it and will have no real understanding of what you mean because it is beyond my experience. Once again, I must have faith in order to accept your claim as true. My acceptance or not of your claim has no bearing on the reality of your experience. It exists because you experience it and that is the proof of it for yourself. It does not cease to exist because I have not experienced it myself and do not believe it exists.

If you state you are happy and I measure the effects of happiness on your body I may “infer” you are feeling happiness in the future by measuring the exact same effects. However, I do not KNOW you are happy, I am only inferring you are happy based upon a coincidence of measurable effects.

We infer conclusions about reality all the time based upon the reports of others. We accept many of them as true because we have had the direct experience for ourselves. We KNOW because we have had the experience for ourselves. I claim the same to be true about Mind/Tao/God. It cannot be rationally argued to a certainty, only inferred by its effects. It can only be proven by direct experience because it is beyond measurement and therefore beyond rational argument to a certainty. My intent here is to infer the possibility of the truth of my claims to others in order to encourage them to investigate directly for themselves.

I have run out of time again. This discussion is getting more an more in-depth and I don't have the time to respond to everything at one time anymore. I will respond to your other comments and respond to you too Shaolin Wookie as my time permits.

Shaolin Wookie

06-10-2007, 05:45 AM

Scott R. Brown

06-10-2007, 07:08 AM

Hi Gentlemen,

I only have a minute here. Tonight when I am able to post I will present some evidence that suggests non-corporeal mind.

Some involves scientific research.

cjurakpt

06-10-2007, 12:06 PM

so Scott, here's a question - and I base it on your analogy of the potter (which I like very much)

in the analogy, the idea of the pot precededs it's creation; however, is this really so? certainly, the specific arrangement that we call "pot" is not yet as such, but the elements that make up the pot already exist, it's just up to me to organize them into the construct I call "pot"; so on the one hand, something has changed, but on the one have I actually created anything? if not, then that implies that the thought actually followed the pot in the sense that the extant elements that were "destined" to become a pot were already there...of course, we now that this can be seen an issue of semantics, or relative vs. absolute, but still fun to kick around...

the other point of curiosity is that, if the pot and the thought about the pot can be said to have existence, since they are perceivable, then the same criteria for thought must necessarilly exist: in other words, the pot had pre-existing elements that just were not organized as "pot"; so, then, what of the thought about the pot? was the thought without previous existence? or was it also made up of disassembled pre-existing elements? and if so, this is very interesting - because, whereas the elements of the pot are perceivable to me, since I gather them to make the pot, I am not so sure that the same can be said of the elements that constitute the thought; and if I can't peceive the elements, then how do I bring them together to form a thought? Buddhism talk sabout learning to perceive the the origins of thought in order to cause cessation, but that does not answer the uestion of how do I in fact assemble the thought in the first place; on the other hand, if there are no pre-existing elements, then is thought created out of nothing?

a final bit of musing: while thought and thing are somehow related, they do not seem to be interdependent: I can have a thought and later manifest it (the pot analogy); or I can observe something and have a thought about it subsequent to the direct observation; I can also have a thought but not a manifest correlate - the obvous example, to me, is God: I can think all I want about some omnipitenet Other, but as the qualification for God rests laregly on it not being perceptable in esse by human faculties (a nice trick of the true creator if I may wax atheistic a moment), it is obviously something that can be thought but never realized (actually, another interesting question: can the inverse exist: can I observe directly without a thought necessarilly occuring? is this what K. talks about with "choiceless awareness"?);

grist for the mill...

cjurakpt

06-10-2007, 12:18 PM

This is just one of the conclusions one will reach through evolutionary thoery, when applied to a larger scale. There was a period without mind. A very, very long period. As a matter of fact, probably somewhere around 14 billion years without to the .5 with. Mind evolved to become what it was. It is not an intrinsic quality. Like a machine, it measured and adapted to phenomena. The phenomena do not adapt to it. There will always be objective existence in that regard. But you can only perceive your version of it.
define mind, that is the first task: I agree that there has been an evolution, for certain, but the question is, is mind from the vantage of human mind a pre-condition for any sort of perception? I would say that no matter how primitive the perceptual aparatus of a given entity, if it is geared towards even the remotest form of self-preservation, then it has mind;

But with a large enough pool of subjective observation, there is a map of objectivity. When there's 13 witnesses to a murder, it's the picture you get from all 13 that helps validate the truth of the matter. The unneccesary and uncorroborated data is discarded as inaccurate. If one observation is corroborated by all 13, it need not be disputed. The leads they help formulate may bring other witnesses into play. Sooner or later, you've got a pretty good idea of how it all went down.
Chuang Tzu argues against this as one of his main treatises (Discussion on All Things Being Equal); basically, if every single opinion is inherently subjective, increased quantity does not add up to a change in quality; all we have is an increase agreement, which depending on the situation, will be seen as sufficient or not (e.g. - the majority of the US Congress can agree on something, but one opinion, the President's can overide it); who is to say that in your 13 person analogy, there is a group of 14 somewhere hidden who suddenly manifest with a contradictory story? again, agreement is useful for a matter of convenience, giving the illusion of objectivity...

Not necessarily. Demonstration: the inside of a black hole.You cannot perceive it. If you do, you're dead. The mind has no place in a black hole.
but you can perceive the effects that demarkate its function, such as the inescapability of light; hence, we draw conclusions as to the interior and its properties; if we couldn't observe this, then you would not even be able to make your statement, which, in and of itself, describes a knowable property of a black hole...

I also agree with CF on this issue. You're confusing existence with knowledge again. My body exists without perception. So does my brain. My identity does not. They're probably pretty friggin' usless without my identity, but I can take it away by putting myself into a coma. Without life support, I'm dead.
body does not exist without perception: the entire body is one large perceptual apparatus; identity on the other hand, can be variable (see above) - the question is, what is identity? a human's sense of identity is different from a slug's, but I would argue since they both engage in self-preservation, there is a concept of self, no matter how rudimentary by our standards, but it is there nevertheless (you may call it reflexive versus conscious, but the end result is the same - "self" preservation)

Qualities subject to perception are not a requirement for the existence of all things, only for certain knowledge of all things. Their existence precedes perception and knowledge.
I'm not sure I get your poit on this, could you give an example?

Shaolin Wookie

06-10-2007, 01:07 PM

but you can perceive the effects that demarkate its function, such as the inescapability of light; hence, we draw conclusions as to the interior and its properties; if we couldn't observe this, then you would not even be able to make your statement, which, in and of itself, describes a knowable property of a black hole...

It was a joke.

body does not exist without perception: the entire body is one large perceptual apparatus; identity on the other hand, can be variable (see above) - the question is, what is identity? a human's sense of identity is different from a slug's, but I would argue since they both engage in self-preservation, there is a concept of self, no matter how rudimentary by our standards, but it is there nevertheless (you may call it reflexive versus conscious, but the end result is the same - "self" preservation)

I'm not sure I get your poit on this, could you give an example?

I think we were talking about the ability to perceive the self, rather than being the self.

Scott R. Brown

06-11-2007, 04:33 AM

Hi Gentlemen,

I will have to leave the conversation for about week. I won’t have time to respond to every comment I want to respond to right now. For now I will respond to cjurakpt’s comments and then try to get to the others in a week or so if the conversation is still continuing.

But first,

Below is one link that provides some evidence that leads to the consideration of the existence of a non-corporeal intelligence (Mind). Remember, I contend that direct experience is the only proof available and that all material measurements may only infer existence. So to me material evidence, which may be explained in any number of ways, is only meant to get one to question their assumptions about reality in order to investigate personally for themselves. I will say there is at least one formally trained psychiatrist named Brian L. Weiss, http://www.brianweiss.com/ who is writing books on reincarnation after a chance meeting with a patient in 1980 who revealed some interesting information during hypnotherapy sessions. There are numerous other individuals writing books about patients they have put under hypnotherapy who reveal similar findings. Also, remember I contend that variations in data regarding observational evidence are due to individual temperaments, historical era and culture, intelligence and ability to communicate effectively. As with reports by mystics, the important indicators are the similarities, not the variations. In other words, similar reports would indicate a higher probability of reality. My contention is that our pre-conditioned world-views filter our perceptions and will therefore color our interpretation of experiences causing inaccuracies in reporting. I see this as an inherent characteristic of the system/Tao and therefore, is not a bad thing. Growth comes from the challenging of accepted boundaries. Near death experience research also provides an ever growing information base with similarities in reports.

The Global Consciousness Project, also call the Princeton EGG experiment: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ In short this is a series of about 65 computers place around the world monitoring random noise. The computers measure statistical variations in random noise correlated to world and local events in an attempt to measure global consciousness. Think of it as monitoring disturbances in the Force. It has correlated statistical variations in random noise with over 50 events occurring since 1998, including 911 and the Malaysian tsunami among others.

There is also a recent experiment demonstrating physiological response to unpredictable/unknown stimuli prior to receiving the stimuli. I don’t have to time to find the report. Perhaps someone here can locate it. In short individuals’ physiological responses were measure when showed emotion stimulating pictures. The researchers found that physiologic responses to certain stimuli were manifested before the random pictures were displayed.

Scott R. Brown

06-11-2007, 04:48 AM

Hi cjurakpt,

in the analogy, the idea of the pot precededs it's creation; however, is this really so? certainly, the specific arrangement that we call "pot" is not yet as such, but the elements that make up the pot already exist, it's just up to me to organize them into the construct I call "pot"; so on the one hand, something has changed, but on the one have I actually created anything? if not, then that implies that the thought actually followed the pot in the sense that the extant elements that were "destined" to become a pot were already there...of course, we now that this can be seen an issue of semantics, or relative vs. absolute, but still fun to kick around...

This a very interesting perspective.

To me, all experience is a matter of context or perspective. From one perspective the idea of a pot begins in the mind. The Platonic Form or Idea of “pot-ness” precedes the “idea” of a specific pot that is then followed by the “physical manifestation” of the specific pot. But this only occurs in a linear universe; if only the present exists as the essence of reality, as some contend, and past and future occur merely as characteristics of perception, then the idea of pot-ness, the idea of the specific pot, and the pot’s manifestation, all occur simultaneously. If linear time is an illusion, then, is anything actually created and does anything really occur? Under this reality the passage of time is merely one manner or perspective of experiencing existence and is both real AND illusory according to our context or perspective of perception. I am implying here that time occurs, but at the same time does not occur. It all depends upon ones perspective of perception. While time is a process and no time just IS, they each occur according to a perspective of mind. The idea of a phenomenon occurring in numerous manifestations at once may be illustrated by the Old Woman/Young Woman optical illusion (see below). When we view this picture we perceive only one face at a time according to our perspective, but in actuality it is one face, the other face, both faces and neither all at the same time. Each perception occurs according to a specific perspective of mind or context. Change your perspective or context and the perception changes, yet all remain present at once, at the same time, in the same space!

Both women occur inherently within the picture regardless of our ability to perceive them both at the same time or not, yet the recognition of the Old Woman and the Young Woman are dependent upon us perceiving according to a context or pre-existing experience. So for example, if we lived in a world where we saw no other people or reflections of our own face we would not be able to recognize the women in the picture as faces of people because we would have no context to give the lines and colors meaning. To us the picture would be just a drawing of random lines filled with specific colors. We recognize faces because we have seen faces. So in this sense the picture is actually an Old Woman only, a Young Woman only, at once both an Old Woman and a Young Woman only, a picture of nothing only, AND all at the same time. Each occurs according to a specific context or perspective that is manifested or created by the perceiving mind.

So in the example of us creating a specific pot, another material pot actually precedes us making our pot because we must have a context that precedes the making of our pot. I have seen pots before and based upon this pre-existing version I create my own version of a pot. The pot I create then is merely a modified version of pots I have already seen. From this perspective a material pot precedes the idea of a pot because my idea is based upon pre-existing material pots I have seen. Even in the past the idea of pots most likely occurred from a series of direct experiences adapted to a specific need. For example: first I see a bowl like depression that held water from the rain, and then I combine that observation with a known characteristic of clay. I walk in clay and it leaves a depression, I pick up the clay and I learn that it is mold-able, I figure I can make a bowl like something to hold water just like my foot prints did in the clay; some such thing like this may have occurred. From this experience we see that the idea for a pot came from a correlation of phenomena originating within the material universe first, then the manifestation of a specific pot second. Just as the recognizing of the face of the women is dependent upon actually seeing faces first. This process seems to validate the perspective that mind follows matter as put forth by Crushing Fist. The problem with this is, one it presumes a linear universe is the essence of reality, which is being now questioned by some physicists and has never been accepted by mystics, and two, it forgets that we have everyday evidence that mind creates. Regardless of some people’s flights of fancy, 1,000,000 monkeys typing randomly for 10,000,000 years will never come up with Hamlet. It takes mind to create and we see the evidence of it directly in our lives every day. The only other alternative is to accept that randomly occurring creation accidently created a mind that specifically creates. This passes for reason amongst some of those who think themselves reasonable, but is actually an act of faith based upon incomplete material evidence for an inherent creative intelligence.

the other point of curiosity is that, if the pot and the thought about the pot can be said to have existence, since they are perceivable, then the same criteria for thought must necessarilly exist: in other words, the pot had pre-existing elements that just were not organized as "pot"; so, then, what of the thought about the pot? was the thought without previous existence? or was it also made up of disassembled pre-existing elements? and if so, this is very interesting - because, whereas the elements of the pot are perceivable to me, since I gather them to make the pot, I am not so sure that the same can be said of the elements that constitute the thought; and if I can't perceive the elements, then how do I bring them together to form a thought? Buddhism talk sabout learning to perceive the the origins of thought in order to cause cessation, but that does not answer the uestion of how do I in fact assemble the thought in the first place; on the other hand, if there are no pre-existing elements, then is thought created out of nothing?

Again a very interesting comment!

The Buddhist assertion that thought originates from no-thought means something closer to, “discursive thought originates from non-discursive thought”, hence the expression “the thought of no-thought”. This is one of the principles I have been trying to discuss here. The Void, or cessation of thought, is NOT nothingness and this is specifically stated in Buddhist writings, including Ch’an writings. There is a distinction drawn between thought organized as words, images, sounds or any other organized structure relative to the world of Forms, and thought that has no inherent organization. Thought that has no inherent organization is Formless Thought, the “Fog of Knowing”, and is the same thing as the non-discursive thought I have been referring to in this discussion. It is Formless Void relative to our everyday discursive, formed manner of thinking, but it is not the same thing as emptiness (nothingness) or absence of thought. It is thinking without any internal/mental discursive manifestation and is considered the essence of thought.

Your concept of elements of thought brought together to form the idea of a “pot” similar to material elements to be combined to create the material “pot” belongs to discursive thinking. To our discursive perspective it appears that the idea of “pot” comes from nothing, but from the non-discursive perspective it is not perceived as “nothing” it is perceived as “formless thought that produces formed thought”. We must remember the words, “formless thought that produces formed thought” is just an approximated description since the condition of perception/being/thought to which we are referring cannot be accurately described. This is because our limited, discursive manner of communication cannot accurately describe a state of being, just as the description of the state of being of happiness is not the actual experience itself but a mere shadow of the actual condition of happiness. So, from the perspective of non-discursive mind there is no occurrence of thought that involves structure, yet structure is inherent within it or we could not use structure or experience structure in our material experience.

According to Buddhist teaching, “thoughts occur spontaneously out of Nothingness, Void, Non-Discursive Mind, Tao, etc.” To the discursive mind this occurs as a process, but it is only partially describable and therefore found rationally wanting. To the Nothingness, from which the thought originates, there is no process at all, because process is a concept of discursive thought. It is difficult to understand which is why it must be directly apprehended and why later Ch’an masters try not to use words, but prefer direct actions or nonsensical mondos to stimulate the right frame of mind, or perspective of mind, within their students.

Scott R. Brown

06-11-2007, 04:54 AM

Hi cjurakpt continued,

a final bit of musing: while thought and thing are somehow related, they do not seem to be interdependent: I can have a thought and later manifest it (the pot analogy); or I can observe something and have a thought about it subsequent to the direct observation; I can also have a thought but not a manifest correlate - the obvous example, to me, is God: I can think all I want about some omnipitenet Other, but as the qualification for God rests laregly on it not being perceptable in esse by human faculties (a nice trick of the true creator if I may wax atheistic a moment), it is obviously something that can be thought but never realized (actually, another interesting question: can the inverse exist: can I observe directly without a thought necessarilly occuring? is this what K. talks about with "choiceless awareness"?);

It seems to me, in essence, what you are saying that is that God cannot be proven discursively to a certainty. There is no rational argument or description that can accurately describe the indescribable. “Tao that can be defined is not the True, Actual or Complete Tao”. That is why it must be directly apprehended, experienced to be known. When we think of God/Tao according to our everyday manner of thinking we are using discursive thought, which is limited, to apprehend that which is beyond discursive thought, that which is unlimited. Just as discursive description cannot give another the experience of happiness and neither can it completely describe the experience of happiness in a manner that the hearer of the description apprehends it without having the experience directly, so neither can God/Tao/Void, etc be apprehended through discursive thought. We must train our mind to perceive directly in a non-discursive manner. This takes time and practice for most of us. Once we apprehend it directly we see it is actually no big deal and it was right there in front of our noses the whole time. Perceiving it is a matter of perspective. It is like a person who can see the Old Woman, but not the Young Woman. Once they are able to perceive the Young Woman they experience an “Ah Hah!!” moment and laugh, because she was right in front of their face all along. Our description to the non-seer of the Young Woman will only help them to recognizer her when they finally do see her, but the description will not help them develop the correct perspective. The correct perspective occurs spontaneously at some point, but require at least the effort to look at the picture. If you do not look at the picture you cannot perceive the Young Woman. If you do not look for God/Tao you will not find the experience. Inherently no one and nothing can help us find the perspective. We must look for it ourselves and we may use the inadequate description provide by others to help us recognize the experience when it occurs!

It is like learning the secret of a magicians trick, once you know the secret, the trick is no longer such big deal, but in the case of God/Tao we still appreciate the mystery of it.

I should be back in a week or so. I'll try to keep an eye on the thread if it continues while I gone!

SanHeChuan

06-11-2007, 05:59 AM

D@mn, Yall have totally highjacked my thread, Yo! :cool:

The Willow Sword

06-11-2007, 06:47 AM

LOL!!! Yeah San He, X-Tianity is pretty mentally ill if you ask me, Same with the other dominant and organized religions on the planet. Whereas i respect a persons right to worship and practice what they will, i still find it funny that radical fundamentalism in any stream of religious thought is still supported and condoned. Its interesting because you read and hear from most that " Well not all X-tians are like that", Well this may be true but that little minority pales in comparison to the Xtians that are definately NOT like that, LOL!! Oh and i attribute this to Muslims and the Jewish faith as well. You have the radicalism and mentally ill writings in every text. LOL i loved the quotes i was rolling in the floor when i read them.I say Keep the spirituality to ones self and dont wear it on your sleeve, dont prosalitize it and certainly do not shove it in the face of everyone.
Its also interesting because i have been taking an interest in the Crusades Lately and reading up on them, i have gone so far as to order a Crusader outfit for this years Ren-Fest, I think it would be fun to go gallabanting around the festival as a crusader as i dont see many who are dressed as such, LOL. go figure.

As for the global warming thing, I will have to disagree that al Gore lied. He presents a problem that is growing on our planet, and whereas we are not the only sole cause of global warming and Cooling to compensate for the warming, We certainly contribute to it in a big way. I dont subscribe to the notion that our pollution and emissions are but a "drop in the bucket", its a pretty fukin big drop of water if you ask me. There are the normal climate changes that the earth has gone through for millions of years and then there is NOW and our contributions to that climate change.

PERSONALLY i think that the US government Has Built a Giant Tesla Coil and put it on a ship and everynow and then they turn the d@mn thing on and create those massive hurricanes like Katrina and Rita. Why? Who knows;):p
Ah Nickola Tesla, Sigh, Fuk Edison and his lackeys and what they did to Tesla so that they could profit from Elecricity.

Peace,TWS

Crushing Fist

06-11-2007, 06:57 AM

PERSONALLY i think that the US government Has Built a Giant Tesla Coil and put it on a ship and everynow and then they turn the d@mn thing on and create those massive hurricanes like Katrina and Rita. Why? Who knows;):p

Google HAARP ;)

Crushing Fist

06-11-2007, 06:59 AM

As to the global warming issue I will say only this:

Consider that the Earth is in a balance.

If there is a one ton weight on each side of the scale it remains balanced.

Add a single feather to one side and that balance is disturbed.

This is the "drop in the bucket"

Straw... meet Camel.

golden arhat

06-11-2007, 03:00 PM

Hi Crushing Fist,

I wrote:

For anything to exist it must be perceivable in some manner. This is self-evident since to demonstrate/validate that a thing exists it must be perceived. We cannot demonstrate something exists that is not at least in some manner perceivable because if it cannot be perceived it cannot be demonstrated to exist. Therefore, we cannot demonstrate anything to exist that is not perceivable.

If your assertion is true please formulate an argument that demonstrates it to be true and you have made no argument that demonstrates my argument to be false. Making a statement without a supporting argument is merely an opinion. My comment was part of an overall argument.

To be perceivable IS a requirement for something to exist. I will clarify my statement because I understand it is not quite clear. For something to exist in the material universe it must have qualities that make it perceivable. If it exists and is not perceivable there is no way to demonstrate it exists. If the phenomenon does not affect the material universe in any way it is non-existent. This means the phenomenon must at the very least affect the material universe in some way that indicates it exists and this affect must be a perceivable. Once the phenomenon is perceived or affects the material universe in a perceivable manner then it can be said to exist.

The context for our knowledge is the material universe. Anything outside that context does not exist within the material universe and cannot be said to exist within this context. To me the material universe is the same as the perceivable universe. If something exists beyond the material/perceivable universe and is one day detected then it was always within the perceivable universe and existed.

When I say the phenomenon must be perceivable or measurable that is not to say that it must necessarily be perceived and measured in order to exist, only have that is must have the quality of being able to be perceived, although since existence is Mind all phenomena that exists is known by Mind because it is created by Mind which in this case is the Universal Mind/Tao/God.

Phenomena may exist that are not perceivable by man, but are perceivable by the Universal Mind/Tao/God. This perception is what gives rise to the phenomenon’s existence. Let us imagine I am a potter. I have an idea about a type of pot I want to make. The pot exists originally in my mind as an idea. Once I make the pot it has material form and is measurable by you and may therefore proven to exist. However, the idea for the pot cannot be said to not exist because I perceived it and it affected me through that perception regardless of whether I created the pot or not. I cannot prove to you I had the idea for the pot until I create it and you can measure it through your material reality. However, the pot still existed within my mind first regardless of whether you believe me or not. The proof of it only comes afterwards. Ideas exist because they affect Mind, the material manifestation exists because it affects Mind AND the material universe.

An example of a phenomenon that was perceivable, but not perceived are x-rays. X-rays were not perceivable until 1895. They affected the environment before their discovery, but they were not known and their effects were not perceived or directly measurable, however x-rays have the quality of measurability because they affect the universe through interaction with other phenomena and therefore they exist. The fact they were not directly perceived until 1895 did not make them unperceivable or un-measurable, only unperceived and unmeasured.

If a phenomenon does not affect other phenomena or Mind it cannot exist. If it affects other phenomena or Mind then it has qualities that are perceivable and/or measurable.

I wrote:

1) Everything that exists is perceivable.

Again, this is an opinion without support. Please demonstrate my comment is incorrect by supporting your position with argument as I have done for mine. Please demonstrate to me ANYTHING that you can PROVE exists without it being perceivable. It cannot be done.

I wrote:

…and in order for it to be perceivable there must be something to perceive it!

You are incorrect here and you cannot demonstrate your conclusion. You can only demonstrate, although you haven’t, that man came late to the party, NOT demonstrate that Mind does not exist or that Mind is not the creator of the material universe, neither can you demonstrate the material universe exists without something to perceive it.

My argument cannot demonstrate Mind to a rational certainty, this is not my purpose, nor have I intended to claim this. My argument does “infer” Universal Mind/Tao/God through rational argument. Universal Mind/Tao/God is beyond reason and the material universe.

If my assertion that Mind creates all things is true, then reason cannot fully explain it because reason is merely a subset of something greater than reason and this has been part of my assertion. Just as the taste of an orange cannot be rationally argued to demonstrate its existence and just as happiness cannot be rationally argued to demonstrate its existence, neither can Mind. My purpose for using taste and happiness as examples is to demonstrate there are phenomena that we accept as true that cannot be proven through rational argument; they must be proven through direct experience. The existence of the experiences of happiness or the taste of an orange by others is not doubted because we have direct experience of them ourselves. Just as the existence of Mind/Tao/God cannot be proven without directly experiencing the fact for ourselves, so we cannot demonstrate that happiness or the taste of an orange exists without directly having the direct experience.

Just because you tell me you are happy does not “prove” to me you are happy. It is an empty claim without evidence to demonstrate it to be true. Even the measurement of the effects of happiness on the body does not prove that happiness is occurring. I only understand your claims of happiness because I have had the direct experience for myself and I recognize your description as a reasonable equivalent to my own experience. Even then I do not KNOW you are happy, I must take your word for it. My acceptance of your claim of happiness is founded upon faith, with no verifiable proof.

If I have never had the experience of happiness and you describe to me your experience of happiness I must again take your word for it and will have no real understanding of what you mean because it is beyond my experience. Once again, I must have faith in order to accept your claim as true. My acceptance or not of your claim has no bearing on the reality of your experience. It exists because you experience it and that is the proof of it for yourself. It does not cease to exist because I have not experienced it myself and do not believe it exists.

If you state you are happy and I measure the effects of happiness on your body I may “infer” you are feeling happiness in the future by measuring the exact same effects. However, I do not KNOW you are happy, I am only inferring you are happy based upon a coincidence of measurable effects.

We infer conclusions about reality all the time based upon the reports of others. We accept many of them as true because we have had the direct experience for ourselves. We KNOW because we have had the experience for ourselves. I claim the same to be true about Mind/Tao/God. It cannot be rationally argued to a certainty, only inferred by its effects. It can only be proven by direct experience because it is beyond measurement and therefore beyond rational argument to a certainty. My intent here is to infer the possibility of the truth of my claims to others in order to encourage them to investigate directly for themselves.

I have run out of time again. This discussion is getting more an more in-depth and I don't have the time to respond to everything at one time anymore. I will respond to your other comments and respond to you too Shaolin Wookie as my time permits.

the percievable cannot exist without the impercievable

and the same with the mundane it canot exist without the heavens

hell even in western science sscientists make judgements as to what probably/does exist by mathematical formula alone

completely free from perception

the "real" can only exist if there were a "void"

by yourlogic u should denie the existance of a vaccum because it simply isnt there and u cannot percieve what isnt there right ?

TaiChiBob

06-13-2007, 06:56 AM

Greetings..

The mind cannot know its own workings.. a hammer cannot hit itself..

Love exists, but it cannot be measured.. sure, we can measure its physical effects, but not the emotion that inspires the effects..

Somethings simply cannot be objectified for measurement..

Be well...

SevenStar

06-13-2007, 07:42 AM

completely free from perception

if math itself can be perceived, then it's not without perception, right?

the "real" can only exist if there were a "void"

by yourlogic u should denie the existance of a vaccum because it simply isnt there and u cannot percieve what isnt there right ?

I think they answered that above, talking about the black hole.

Scott R. Brown

06-14-2007, 05:22 PM

There was a period without mind. A very, very long period. As a matter of fact, probably somewhere around 14 billion years without to the .5 with. Mind evolved to become what it was. It is not an intrinsic quality. Like a machine, it measured and adapted to phenomena.

Hi Shaolin Wookie,

There was a period without brain, not necessarily a period without Mind. There is a difference between the brain and the mind. The mind is something that inhabits the body for a purpose, but inherently exists separate from the body.

While many consider the mind to be a product/quality of the brain, I would assert that the brain is merely part of the perceptive system of the mind. Without a perceptive system the material world cannot be experienced in the same manner. Think of a computer game with more sensory inputs. The more sensory inputs available the greater the quality of the game experience.

There is a large body of research into the experiences of those who have been declared clinically dead and then returned to life, including those who have experienced a cessation of brain function. The reports of these individuals demonstrate a clear pattern to the experience with some variations that may be attributed to the limitations I have previously mentioned.

Just because the brain did not exist 14 billion years ago does not mean mind did not exist. I have asserted that the mind of man is a subset of the Mind of God/Tao. If this is so then it is immaterial whether the mind of man may perceive any phenomenon or not. My original assertion was that phenomena must be perceived, not that they must be perceived by man. All that is required is for phenomena to be perceived by God/Tao which is the essence of Mind.

Since all that exists is from the Mind of God/Tao then it is perceived by God/Tao just as our dreams are created by our mind and perceived by us. Indeed, within my dreams the characters have their own form of perception even though I, the dreamer, originate the dream.

the percievable cannot exist without the impercievable

and the same with the mundane it canot exist without the heavens

hell even in western science sscientists make judgements as to what probably/does exist by mathematical formula alone

completely free from perception

the "real" can only exist if there were a "void"

by yourlogic u should denie the existance of a vaccum because it simply isnt there and u cannot percieve what isnt there right ?

Hi golden arhat,

It is common when considering the principles of Tao, as illustrated by Yin-Yang, to believe that since we have “Fullness” (completely filled) we MUST have the opposite principle of “Emptiness” (absent of all substance). This is a misunderstanding due to the language used to discuss and illustrate the principles. The easiest manner of illustrating the principles of Yin and Yang and their relationship to each other is to use the metaphors of “Full” and “Empty” and other forms of expression that use opposing concepts, however we must remember that words do not accurately describe reality. At best they only illustrate in a partial manner the concept, which must be directly apprehended in order to understand to a greater depth.

In truth there is no requirement for “Full” or “Empty” to exist. These are merely words used to describe a relationship between “Contrasting” principles, NOT “Opposite” principles. Contrasting principles may be “considered” opposite principles when the context is limited to only two items, but in reality there are many phenomena that may be used to contrast with other phenomena. If the only two colors under consideration are Black and Red, they could be considered opposites. There is no requirement for the opposite color to be White. Each principle/phenomena mutually defines the other according to the context, thus they are considered mutually arising and mutually interdependent. Each only requires the other to define it according to the specific context in which they are contrasted.

The Chinese principle of “5 Elements” provides an excellent example of contrasting principles without a requirement for the existence of a specific ‘Opposite”. Wood gives rise to Fire, Fire gives rise to Earth, Earth gives rise to Metal, Metal gives rise to Water, which gives rise to Wood again, etc. The circle of “5 Elements” contains mutually interdependent, mutually arising and mutually contrasting elements without any principle contrasted against a specific opposite principle. Within the context of the “5 Elements” each principle has 4 opposites, that is, 4 contrasting principles that participate in giving rise to it.

This illustrates there is no requirement for “Unperceivable” when defined as “impossible to ever perceive” to oppose/contrast “Perceivable” and neither is there a requirement for “Void” when defined as “without existence” to oppose/contrast “Real”. All that is required is for a principle to contrast with “Perceivable” and “Real”. So there is no requirement or need for “Void” to contrast with “Real”. The only requirement is for the to be something that is “Less Real”; we do not require “Perceivable” to be contrasted with “impossible to ever perceive” only to be contrasted with “not perceived at this time”

Let us say we have three bowls of water. One bowl has 40*F water, the second has 60*F water, and the third has 80*F water. The 60*F bowl is perceived to be warm or cool only in relation to what it is contrasted with. Contrasted with the 40*F water, the 60*F water is “experienced” as warm, contrasted with the 80*F water, the 60*F water is “experienced” as cool. Contrasted with both the 40*F water and the 80*F water, 60*F water is neither warm nor cold. The quality of the experience is determined by what it is contrasted with. Put in simplest terms, when considering “Tall” we do not require “Short”, only something that is not as tall, when considering "Full" we do not require "Empty" only something that is not as full.

In regards to a vacuum:

Vacuum is perceivable, therefore it exists. If it did not exist, it would not be perceivable.

It is assumed that the “Vacuum” is absent of matter, however we do not know whether it is actually absent of matter or not. All we may accurately state is that “Vacuum is absent of any presently measurable form of matter”.

We do know that Vacuum has the quality of dimension, that is, it has space. Since dimension is a measurable quality, dimension demonstrates the presence/existence of Vacuum. We also know that Vacuum has the ability to contain other forms of matter. This too is measurable. Radio waves and light, which is apparently a particle and a wave, moves through a Vacuum, therefore it has the quality of allowing other forms of matter to move through it. This too is measurable. But wait, in order for waves to propagate they must move through a medium. Just as the waves of a pebble tossed into a pond propagate because of the presence of the water, the water transmits the waves, so light, as a wave, and radio waves must propagate through a medium. Since waves propagate through the Vacuum of space we may at least postulate that Vacuum “may” possess a presently un-measurable quality of matter. So we have at least three measurable qualities of Vacuum: dimension, receptivity, and the property of allowing waves to propagate, these qualities are perceivable and allow us to measure the properties of Vacuum helping us to provide a definition of it, therefore Vacuum exists.

mantis108

06-14-2007, 06:12 PM

Hi Shaolin Wookie,

There was a period without brain, not necessarily a period without Mind. There is a difference between the brain and the mind. The mind is something that inhabits the body for a purpose, but inherently exists separate from the body.

While many consider the mind to be a product/quality of the brain, I would assert that the brain is merely part of the perceptive system of the mind. Without a perceptive system the material world cannot be experienced in the same manner. Think of a computer game with more sensory inputs. The more sensory inputs available the greater the quality of the game experience.

There is a large body of research into the experiences of those who have been declared clinically dead and then returned to life, including those who have experienced a cessation of brain function. The reports of these individuals demonstrate a clear pattern to the experience with some variations that may be attributed to the limitations I have previously mentioned.

Just because the brain did not exist 14 billion years ago does not mean mind did not exist. I have asserted that the mind of man is a subset of the Mind of God/Tao. If this is so then it is immaterial whether the mind of man may perceive any phenomenon or not. My original assertion was that phenomena must be perceived, not that they must be perceived by man. All that is required is for phenomena to be perceived by God/Tao which is the essence of Mind.

Since all that exists is from the Mind of God/Tao then it is perceived by God/Tao just as our dreams are created by our mind and perceived by us. Indeed, within my dreams the characters have their own form of perception even though I, the dreamer, originate the dream.

Well said, my friend. :)

It is common when considering the principles of Tao, as illustrated by Yin-Yang, to believe that since we have “Fullness” (completely filled) we MUST have the opposite principle of “Emptiness” (absent of all substance). This is a misunderstanding due to the language used to discuss and illustrate the principles. The easiest manner of illustrating the principles of Yin and Yang and their relationship to each other is to use the metaphors of “Full” and “Empty” and other forms of expression that use opposing concepts, however we must remember that words do not accurately describe reality. At best they only illustrate in a partial manner the concept, which must be directly apprehended in order to understand to a greater depth.

In truth there is no requirement for “Full” or “Empty” to exist. These are merely words used to describe a relationship between “Contrasting” principles, NOT “Opposite” principles. Contrasting principles may be “considered” opposite principles when the context is limited to only two items, but in reality there are many phenomena that may be used to contrast with other phenomena. If the only two colors under consideration are Black and Red, they could be considered opposites. There is no requirement for the opposite color to be White. Each principle/phenomena mutually defines the other according to the context, thus they are considered mutually arising and mutually interdependent. Each only requires the other to define it according to the specific context in which they are contrasted.

The Chinese principle of “5 Elements” provides an excellent example of contrasting principles without a requirement for the existence of a specific ‘Opposite”. Wood gives rise to Fire, Fire gives rise to Earth, Earth gives rise to Metal, Metal gives rise to Water, which gives rise to Wood again, etc. The circle of “5 Elements” contains mutually interdependent, mutually arising and mutually contrasting elements without any principle contrasted against a specific opposite principle. Within the context of the “5 Elements” each principle has 4 opposites, that is, 4 contrasting principles that participate in giving rise to it.

This illustrates there is no requirement for “Unperceivable” when defined as “impossible to ever perceive” to oppose/contrast “Perceivable” and neither is there a requirement for “Void” when defined as “without existence” to oppose/contrast “Real”. All that is required is for a principle to contrast with “Perceivable” and “Real”. So there is no requirement or need for “Void” to contrast with “Real”. The only requirement is for the to be something that is “Less Real”; we do not require “Perceivable” to be contrasted with “impossible to ever perceive” only to be contrasted with “not perceived at this time”

Let us say we have three bowls of water. One bowl has 40*F water, the second has 60*F water, and the third has 80*F water. The 60*F bowl is perceived to be warm or cool only in relation to what it is contrasted with. Contrasted with the 40*F water, the 60*F water is “experienced” as warm, contrasted with the 80*F water, the 60*F water is “experienced” as cool. Contrasted with both the 40*F water and the 80*F water, 60*F water is neither warm nor cold. The quality of the experience is determined by what it is contrasted with. Put in simplest terms, when considering “Tall” we do not require “Short”, only something that is not as tall, when considering "Full" we do not require "Empty" only something that is not as full.

In regards to a vacuum:

Vacuum is perceivable, therefore it exists. If it did not exist, it would not be perceivable.

It is assumed that the “Vacuum” is absent of matter, however we do not know whether it is actually absent of matter or not. All we may accurately state is that “Vacuum is absent of any presently measurable form of matter”.

We do know that Vacuum has the quality of dimension, that is, it has space. Since dimension is a measurable quality, dimension demonstrates the presence/existence of Vacuum. We also know that Vacuum has the ability to contain other forms of matter. This too is measurable. Radio waves and light, which is apparently a particle and a wave, moves through a Vacuum, therefore it has the quality of allowing other forms of matter to move through it. This too is measurable. But wait, in order for waves to propagate they must move through a medium. Just as the waves of a pebble tossed into a pond propagate because of the presence of the water, the water transmits the waves, so light, as a wave, and radio waves must propagate through a medium. Since waves propagate through the Vacuum of space we may at least postulate that Vacuum “may” possess a presently un-measurable quality of matter. So we have at least three measurable qualities of Vacuum: dimension, receptivity, and the property of allowing waves to propagate, these qualities are perceivable and allow us to measure the properties of Vacuum helping us to provide a definition of it, therefore Vacuum exists.

With your previous postulation:

... idea of “spiritual/informational energy or quanta”!

If E=MC^2, then M=E/C^2! This means Mass IS Energy in Motion, so to speak. Different forms of Matter are differentiated by the amount/type/level of motion of their energy.

Humans are composed of matter, humans are sentient; can we therefore say that matter is sentient, or that “some” matter is sentient? From a strictly materialistic point of view we would have to say, Yes! If all things/matter is composed of Tao/God, and Tao/God is sentient then all matter is sentient. Since matter is nothing more than differentiated energy then energy is sentient as well.

I think you have just beautifully expounded the nature of Prajna (wisdom of the void). In fact I believe, if I may boldly say so, you have effectively inspired a whole new perspective on vajra prajna paramita (who says it's not subtle science?). ;)

Warm regards

Robert (Mantis108)