AAF said:
lightgigantic: “How could you possibly detect whether I am lying not whether I answered yes or no? Without a foundation of theoretical knowledge all inquiry is just like leaving one dark corridor to enter another…….”.
Re: I didn’t say ‘lying’, because ‘lying’ presupposes the person in question knows the truth; and I'm not sure you do! And only I asked you; how do you know that your God is full of bliss? You have no evidence for such a claim.
***My point is that you have no capacity to determine whether a person is giving truthful or untruthful information about god - you give a special ontological status to your own direct perception and don't have a theoretical framework to approach the direct perception of others - the risk of such an approach is that one is apt to disregarding the relevant as well as th e irelevant because one has no ability to distinguish between th e two
You don’t even remotely have evidence for His supposed existence, let alone having Him full of bliss! In the absence of such evidence, what looks for you like knowledge is no knowledge at all and baseless.
***If you don't apply the relevant epistemology how can one approach the evidence that leads to ontology (If you don't study physics how can can you examine the evidence for break throughs in rocket science?)
lightgigantic: “…My apologies - it was a typo - it should read "imagine if the rules for discussing science limited without the reference to text books……”.
Re: I can imagine that; what is so unimaginable about it? In fact, active researchers, most of the time, have no textbooks, no previous works, and literature to answer their specific questions or to guide their steps into unknown areas. That is why theirs is called ‘ORIGINAL research’.
*****Seems you ar e out of touch with scientific practice - can you name any scientists (remember you said most) that haven't worked out of an existing paradigm?
lightgigantic: “…Basically all you are doing is stating what "you think so", you haven't even made an enquiry into the subject you are trying to debunk - it doesn't make for a very credible presentation……”.
Re: What are you trying to say? You want me to turn the clock back to the Year 1500 B.C. or so and look inside the hyperactive imagination of your ancient gurus, in order to discover their reason for their ‘vigraha’ claim and have you convinced of my credible presentation! Is this a reasonable demand to make? I don’t think so!
****Well if you picked up a book that gives a eurocentric opinion of the history of religion why don't you pick up a book of religious philosophy for the first time in your life - it would help you ascertain your previous claim that you are in fact "more intelligent than all the gurus in the world" if you had at least read one book on the topic.
lightgigantic: “…And you are the one who is not - the only difference is that your statements are backed up by your perception of what constitutes reality and my statements are backed up by those who have reached a consensus after in depth study and application of the subject……”.
Re: Who are those who have made ‘in depth study’ about the ‘vigraha’; your ancient gurus or their parrots?
****If you mean persons who have applied the appropriate epistemology, yes.
Their studies and their consensus mean nothing, if it is not based on logic and principles of reason.
****Or do you mean your logic and reason as determined by your own limited experience?
It’s wrong to tag ‘vigraha’ to the transcendent. It was wrong then; it is wrong now; and it is wrong forever.
******Once again another wild statement devoid of enquiry - A person could say the same thing about electrons simply because they never went to school
lightgigantic: “…But that’s the point you are failing to address - you are examining god on a basis of your examination of your own limited existence - if you are not actually god by any stretch of the definition, what is the value of your "close examinations"……..”.
Re: You have to realize that people have made their God transcendent to save Him from the ravages of laws of nature. And your ‘vigraha’ reverses this process and does no good for your Deity. Rules of logic are bad enough for Him; why do you want to add to them laws of nature?
*****You have to realise that the god and the living entity do not have the same ontology - of course unless you apply the appropriate epistemology you will never realise it.
lightgigantic: “…Actually its interesting that you think the form of god is fit for the garbage when the material form we exist in will end up either as bird or worm stool or ashes -………”.
Re: You can have either His ‘vigraha’ or His transcendence, but not both.
****You think the words matter and perceptable are identical - this doesn't explain consciousness, which enables perception
By the way, does 'BLISS', in your view, have a ‘vigraha’?
*****Consciousness has form - ever seen anything blissful without a form?
lightgigantic: “…I guess if you don't find anything impractical about accepting definitions drawn from what anyone has said about anything there's no real problem…….”.
Re: Does that mean it has a ‘vigraha’? Does LOVE have a ‘vigraha’? Does PLEASURE have a ‘vigraha’? Does PAIN have a ‘vigraha’? Does HAPPINESS have ‘vigraha’? Answer clearly and briefly, not just play around with words and phrases for no real purpose at all! Otherwise, you'll most likely be branded as ‘gullible’, even though you’re quite intelligent, because of your blind trust in the authority of your ancient and somewhat primitive and naive gurus!
**** see above
lightgigantic: “…All because I don't blindly trust you - you haven't even picked up a book about a "guru" - your philosophy seems to be "I know what I like and I like what I know"………”.
Re: "I know what I like and I like what I know"; I love that! I told you that you’re quite intelligent, even though you blindly believe in the authority of your ancient and somewhat primitive and naive gurus!
****Well I do actually have a philosophy too, but in the absence of any sort of progressive discussion with you I haven't really had the opportunity to express it
Can you imagine what would become of you, if you scrap this bogus VEDIC authority and begin to think freely for yourself? A BEACON of light, a real BEACON of light, I predict!
******I guess you will just have to inspire me to make the change
God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.
- Thread starter AAF
- Start date
- Status
Prince_James said:
*************
M*W: Well, as yet, no one (including all the christians on this forum) have been able to prove the existence of a god (although they are damn sure that he exists).
So if god's believers cannot prove him to exist, why should the rest of us care?
All other matters could be tested and either proved or disproved. If it's not testable, it cannot be proven.
If a god existed, there would be obvious evidence of his existence without a need for testing. In other words, we'd all be having the same hallucinations and delusions identifiable at the same time in all places and among all peoples, and there would be only one god-like entity who was recognized as the one and only god.
Prince_James: “I am afraid you are a bit mistaken here. According to many resources I am reading, mathematicians usually proclaim that 1/0 does not equal 1/infinity which then equals 0/0, but that it simply is undefined owing to the fact that it leads to absurdities. Do you have any specific resources that perhaps I am not finding here? Moreover, would not we get this as an answer if we took what you said as true regarding division by infinity? 5/infinity = 0. 0 * 5 = 0. Hence 5/infinity != 0?……..”.
Re: 1/0 = infinity, not 1/infinity; and hence 5/infinity = 5 / (1/0) = 5 * (0/1) = 0. Apart from this small correction, your statement above, I should say, is 99% accurate. Fortunately for me, it’s 1% inaccurate! Yes, dividing by ZERO has become a taboo since the rise of the computer industry. However, there is a particular area where division by ZERO as explained earlier is allowed and in some cases necessary; and that special area is the LIMITS. See an excellent summary of all relevant cases in this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero
Prince_James: “… How do you figure? I am intrigued by your rationale…….”.
Re: Euclid’s geometry is axiomatic. Take its axioms for granted; and the consequences follow deductively by logical necessity. And so by merely rotating a PLANE in various ways, every possible SOLID can be obtained.
Prince_James: “…Good, good. Then I think we may well have come to the truth regarding infinity's definition and the nature of the ideal-limit of infinity…….”.
Re: Good! I think we both agree on this issue. Let’s turn next to the notion of future eternity!
Prince_James: “…Yes. Although I think it also does us well to keep in mind something that would keep us from Zenoesque paradoxes, for if we applied this same principle to space as "just as one cannot reach the next moment in time before it becomes the present, so too can you not reach the next position in space before it becomes 'here', hence movement from 'here' is impossible, ergo motion is impossible", we'd be committing, of course, an egregious fallacy……….”.
Re: Yes, that would be a fallacy. But if we define ‘THERE’ instead, then we can say, quite logically, that it’s impossible to reach ‘THERE’, because ‘THERE’ becomes ‘HERE’ as soon as we arrive there!
Prince_James: “…That is to say, a future eternity does not demand the ever present "nowness" as implying a lack of flow in time, which some may wrongly conclude, but rather that relative to the present, the future is always at least one moment ahead, and though we may relative to our past reach the future, we can never reach the future free from our present….”.
Re: Correct! Certainly, future eternity does not imply the stillness of time.
Prince_James: “…In the past year, the concept of "The Now" has somewhat become a "hot button" topic in the philosophy forum here on Sci. I think I shall make a topic on what we are discussing now there, to attempt to defuse some improper philosophizing………”.
Re: Good idea! I look forward to reading it, even though improper philosophizing, in my view, is the 'royal' road to proper philosophizing and should not be defused!
Prince_James: “…He is very religious, clearly, but he is an okay chap so far. The discussion at the very least is progressing and he is not at all insensible….”.
Re: That is my opinion too. But ‘Lumiere_Gigantique’ has obviously the 'stamina' of a MARATHON RUNNER; and he is a tough chap to argue with. He just can’t put his holy Vedas aside and address the point at hand!
Prince_James: “…You struck the ideal nail on the ideal head, my good man. The one flaw of Plato was that denigration and demotion of the real for the ideal which eventually lead to a sort of religious apathy in later years with the physical, every-day, world. But what say you to my concept that some ideals can be construed as not only ideals in the way that other ideals allow us to speak of "progressing towards an ideal", but can be construed as actual physical truths, as well? For instance, I am of the view, as I have claimed a few times prior, that space itself demands an infinity, as well as past eternities, for several reasons which I have put forth. Supposing they are true, do we not therefore have to conclude that the ideal of both space and time would not only be a quality towards which things progress, but also a thing which actually exists in the normal sense, even though each would be beyond our capacity to reach? LightGigantic, you are up next”.
Re: I would say ideals could be constructed just as you described. In fact, it’s the usual way of defining ideals in theology in particular. The notion of 'ideal limits' is somewhat recent and employed mainly in resolving some of the traditional paradoxes of infinity. It should be noted, however, that ideal limits, unlike the usual ideals, are absolutely immune to attacks by relativism, naturalism, social constructivism, materialistic skepticism, and the like. Limits have their roots in mathematics; and it’s by no means easy to be critical of something mathematical!
Last edited:
hyperqube said:
*************
M*W: See my post to Prince_James.
*************
M*W: Thoughts are creations. Humans are the thinkers, except I do believe some animals, like my dogs, for example, can think and contemplate before acting on or reacting to something. I don't think they have a great sense of right and wrong where instinct comes in, but I've seen them observe and logically figure out and understand how things work, like learning to open doors or the gate to get out of the yard. Well, this is beside the point. Humans are the thinking animals. Thoughts create actions that create things. God is a man-made deity. God only exists in man's thoughts from whence he came. Man creates thoughts. Thoughts create man.
*************
M*W: Not a thing. In fact, when this was written, supposedly during the Exodus when Moses was on the top of the mountain, it wasn't an actual occurrence as the Exodus has long been disproven to have taken place. It was a story, an allegory, and not real. Why was Moses on the mountain in the first place? In ancient myth, most gods were to be found on the mountain tops, like Zeus on Mount Olympus, etc. Now why would you think that mountain tops were where you could find your gods? Because the top of the mountain was closer to the heavens, so they wouldn't have to yell so hard to talk to their gods. Now whom do you suppose their god was? It was Aten, the sun god. People of the allegorical Exodus were Egyptian monotheistic sun-worshippers. To be closer to the sun was to be closer to god.
*************
M*W: How can you prove your god is infinite, when you can't even prove he exists!
lightgigantic: “Then why do people who want their garbage taken away deal with garbage men and why do people who seek medical attention go to doctors? As it applies to this thread you are not grounded in the basics of theoretical knowledge to distinguish a qualified religious practitioner, hence you think your opinions are just as credible as anyone else…….”.
Re: The Caste System of Hinduism forbids social mobility. Garbage men remain garbage men. Doctors remain doctors. Priests remain priests. They cannot move up; and they cannot move down. Hence the Caste System is socially rigid and the exact opposite to the basic moral and legal rule that ‘all men were born equal’.
lightgigantic: “…I never said that - there are many right ways and many wrong ways - but even the varieties of right and wrong ways can be perceived by general principles - for instance because you lack a foundation in theoretical knowledge your understanding on this subject is completely wrong….”.
Re: What subject? The infinity of ways of getting it wrong? If that is what you meant, then definitely you were wrong. Since you asserted that there is only way of getting it wrong! And that is a mistake.
lightgigantic: “…Is it reasonable and logical for a prisoner to expect a 16 course meal for breakfast?….”.
Re: That depends on the specifics of the situation. If they are, for instance, doing a lot of hard work as you’re doing to break out of your irresolvable DILMMA, then they should ask for and expect more than ‘16’ to carry their duties! This is very fair. Don’t try to disagree; okay?
lightgigantic: “…Not really because you didn't address my challenge how you can enter into the understanding of ANYTHING without a basis of theoretical knowledge……”.
Re: Remember! You’re the one who has been challenged. Every thing, whose concept is contradictory, does not exist. And the concept of God is contradictory. Therefore, God does not exist. And so far you’re completely unable to come up with any concept of your God, which is free of contradictions. Consequently, your knowledge is as good as that of a practicing lumberjack (i.e. PRACTITIONER!) in this regard! It’s true. Don’t try to disagree!
lightgigantic: “… -still no good reason for us to accept that scripture is a concoction the basis of your concoctions. All you do is tag things like "correct?" "do you agree?" to your concoctions - your pleading doesn't add any credibility to your claims……….”.
Re: Your scripture is a mythology. And it convinces nobody around here. Even you have no trouble in ignoring it and turning a blind eye to the pronounced polytheism of those holy Vedas!
lightgigantic: “…Once again you didn't address why your own existence is a suitable prototype for determining the parameters of god's”.
Re: Existence means existence. Your attempt to create some sort of unknown existence tailored specifically for your own Deity would not get off the ground. And it would not work. For simple reason, it flies in the face of logical principles. And you cannot even express or state it in clear words. And so it’s a hot air!
AAF:
"Re: 1/0 = infinity, not 1/infinity; and hence 5/infinity = 5 / (1/0) = 5 * (0/1) = 0. Apart from this small correction, your statement above, I should say, is 99% accurate. Fortunately for me, it’s 1% inaccurate! Yes, dividing by ZERO has become a taboo since the rise of the computer industry. However, there is a particular area where division by ZERO as explained earlier is allowed and in some cases necessary; and that special area is the LIMITS. See an excellent summary of all relevant cases in this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero"
Just to be certain I am understanding the Limits application of this, please tell me if I am right: If a is any number, and b the non-zero limit divisor, the answer is infinity, negative or positive depending on the sign of a?
"Re: Euclid’s geometry is axiomatic. Take its axioms for granted; and the consequences follow deductively by logical necessity. And so by merely rotating a PLANE in various ways, every possible SOLID can be obtained."
This is true, in so much as one must also add the leap from two to three dimensions.
"Re: Yes, that would be a fallacy. But if we define ‘THERE’ instead, then we can say, quite logically, that it’s impossible to reach ‘THERE’, because ‘THERE’ becomes ‘HERE’ as soon as we arrive there!"
Yes indeed.
"Re: Good idea! I look forward to reading it, even though improper philosophizing, in my view, is the 'royal' road to proper philosophizing and should not be defused!"
Well yes, we all need to make our mistakes in order to eventually come to truth, although at the same time, if we do not eventually tackle the mistakes of others which spread their ideas, the truth can fade from view. It is so often the case that it is merely the viewpoint most loudly expressed that becomes the social idea. For instance, though determinism v. free-will is a huge issue in philosophy, with probably a slight advantage to determinism, the public is all ready convinced of free-will.
"Re: That is my opinion too. But ‘Lumiere_Gigantique’ has obviously the 'stamina' of a MARATHON RUNNER; and he is a tough chap to argue with. He just can’t put his holy Vedas aside and address the point at hand!"
Yes, yes.
"Re: I would say ideals could be constructed just as you described. In fact, it’s the usual way of defining ideals in theology in particular. The notion of 'ideal limits' is somewhat recent and employed mainly in resolving some of the traditional paradoxes of infinity. It should be noted, however, that ideal limits, unlike the usual ideals, are absolutely immune to attacks by relativism, naturalism, social constructivism, materialistic skepticism, and the like. Limits have their roots in mathematics; and it’s by no means easy to be critical of something mathematical! "
Yes. It really is. Specifically as mathematics is generally a vigorously well supported system with centuries of contributions by our greatest minds. There may be one or two conceptional flaws that I'd point out are less fruitful than others to hold, but there is a degree of internal coherence.
Medicine Woman:
"M*W: Well, as yet, no one (including all the christians on this forum) have been able to prove the existence of a god (although they are damn sure that he exists).
So if god's believers cannot prove him to exist, why should the rest of us care?"
As a serious philosophical concept, it would seem that despite the ineptitude of the adherents to the belief, we ought to evaluate the concept in order to assure that we are not simply being ignorant. That is to say, we ought to have a reason to disbelieve as much as it behooves us to believe.
"All other matters could be tested and either proved or disproved. If it's not testable, it cannot be proven."
Testable and empirical, or testable and philosophically justified?
"If a god existed, there would be obvious evidence of his existence without a need for testing. In other words, we'd all be having the same hallucinations and delusions identifiable at the same time in all places and among all peoples, and there would be only one god-like entity who was recognized as the one and only god. "
It depends strongly on the nature of this thing/being. If it is a Deist-esque being which simply configures the laws of the universe and lets things be, then well, that would be much less available to our normal life, than if Apollo was wheeling his sun chariot across the skies.
Light Gigantic, you are up next.
"Re: 1/0 = infinity, not 1/infinity; and hence 5/infinity = 5 / (1/0) = 5 * (0/1) = 0. Apart from this small correction, your statement above, I should say, is 99% accurate. Fortunately for me, it’s 1% inaccurate! Yes, dividing by ZERO has become a taboo since the rise of the computer industry. However, there is a particular area where division by ZERO as explained earlier is allowed and in some cases necessary; and that special area is the LIMITS. See an excellent summary of all relevant cases in this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero"
Just to be certain I am understanding the Limits application of this, please tell me if I am right: If a is any number, and b the non-zero limit divisor, the answer is infinity, negative or positive depending on the sign of a?
"Re: Euclid’s geometry is axiomatic. Take its axioms for granted; and the consequences follow deductively by logical necessity. And so by merely rotating a PLANE in various ways, every possible SOLID can be obtained."
This is true, in so much as one must also add the leap from two to three dimensions.
"Re: Yes, that would be a fallacy. But if we define ‘THERE’ instead, then we can say, quite logically, that it’s impossible to reach ‘THERE’, because ‘THERE’ becomes ‘HERE’ as soon as we arrive there!"
Yes indeed.
"Re: Good idea! I look forward to reading it, even though improper philosophizing, in my view, is the 'royal' road to proper philosophizing and should not be defused!"
Well yes, we all need to make our mistakes in order to eventually come to truth, although at the same time, if we do not eventually tackle the mistakes of others which spread their ideas, the truth can fade from view. It is so often the case that it is merely the viewpoint most loudly expressed that becomes the social idea. For instance, though determinism v. free-will is a huge issue in philosophy, with probably a slight advantage to determinism, the public is all ready convinced of free-will.
"Re: That is my opinion too. But ‘Lumiere_Gigantique’ has obviously the 'stamina' of a MARATHON RUNNER; and he is a tough chap to argue with. He just can’t put his holy Vedas aside and address the point at hand!"
Yes, yes.
"Re: I would say ideals could be constructed just as you described. In fact, it’s the usual way of defining ideals in theology in particular. The notion of 'ideal limits' is somewhat recent and employed mainly in resolving some of the traditional paradoxes of infinity. It should be noted, however, that ideal limits, unlike the usual ideals, are absolutely immune to attacks by relativism, naturalism, social constructivism, materialistic skepticism, and the like. Limits have their roots in mathematics; and it’s by no means easy to be critical of something mathematical! "
Yes. It really is. Specifically as mathematics is generally a vigorously well supported system with centuries of contributions by our greatest minds. There may be one or two conceptional flaws that I'd point out are less fruitful than others to hold, but there is a degree of internal coherence.
Medicine Woman:
"M*W: Well, as yet, no one (including all the christians on this forum) have been able to prove the existence of a god (although they are damn sure that he exists).
So if god's believers cannot prove him to exist, why should the rest of us care?"
As a serious philosophical concept, it would seem that despite the ineptitude of the adherents to the belief, we ought to evaluate the concept in order to assure that we are not simply being ignorant. That is to say, we ought to have a reason to disbelieve as much as it behooves us to believe.
"All other matters could be tested and either proved or disproved. If it's not testable, it cannot be proven."
Testable and empirical, or testable and philosophically justified?
"If a god existed, there would be obvious evidence of his existence without a need for testing. In other words, we'd all be having the same hallucinations and delusions identifiable at the same time in all places and among all peoples, and there would be only one god-like entity who was recognized as the one and only god. "
It depends strongly on the nature of this thing/being. If it is a Deist-esque being which simply configures the laws of the universe and lets things be, then well, that would be much less available to our normal life, than if Apollo was wheeling his sun chariot across the skies.
Light Gigantic, you are up next.
Lightgigantic:
"*******This vision of detachment is not possible (at least with 100% surety ) unless one can see the owner, god – the alternative to not perceiving god is that you wind up attached to matter (and suffer accordingly)"
Why is it not? Could not one simply say "wow, I do not own this, because clearly it will pass away" and be done with it?
"*****Yes - Life is beyond chemistry"
Well as we primarily concern ourselves with the interaction with a person's mind, it stands to reason that when their mind no longer functions and will never function again - such as death - that we recognize the person with whom we had a relationship with is gone. This does not necessitate a conception of life beyond the physical foundations for consciousness, only a recognition that the physical foundations no longer exist, hence the consciousness is annihilated.
"*****The mind (distinct from intelligence) ascribes a value to those perceptions – for instance a piece of bamboo is not focused on by the intelligence because we do not find it tasty to eat but if you had a termites mind you would love it"
A termite may indeed see something and view it as food, as well as us, but is it not possible to simply sit and stare, and not make such evaluations? I believe many open-eyed meditational practices aspire and (apparently) achieve this state.
"*****Are you trying to say that there is no impetus for name, fame and adoration amongst mathmeticians and the like for being the best at their science? Or even on a more basic level the feeling of pleasure at solving a complex problem as opposed to the dissapointment of error strongly indicates desire – how can one begin to accomplish something without desire? – one person may drop out of high school mathmatics and another will go on to become a PHD due to the influence of desire"
I had merely meant the process of computation. That is. The process which allows us to make sense of such statement as 3 * 6 = 18. That is to say, some people may indeed get something out of it, but the process does not seem to be rooted in desire in and of itself, only its impetus.
"***When a bank teller goes to sleep he may envision himself as the wife of a medieval norweigien tomato farmer – isn’t that a distinct break in the continuum?"
In so much as his prior identity is not being referenced throughout the dream, yes. That being said, such identity is exceedingly temporal, and when we awaken and return back to our normal selves, we are a synthesis of both if we remember, even if we remember the dream as a dream, and thus has minimal impact on our personality.
"*****If I delete your memory banks how can you restore them unless you have a back up somewhere? And if you only manage to salvage 75% of your existing files how does this constitute a new body of work completely distinct from the previous body of work?"
The process is clearly not a full deletion, merely a damaging of our capacity to access them. With the recovery of such capacities, the memories are once again available. It is like losing the key to a door. So long as one no longer has the key, one cannot open the door. But once the key is returned or you get a new one, the door opens and you can enter the building.
"****But while you are dreaming it is real – inotherwords you experience real emmotional responses to stimuli, and these experiences are operating out of a perceived sense of real “I” which is completely different from one’s waking “I” – th eonly difference between the waking I and the dreaming I is that the dreaming I does not have to periodically return to occupying the same recptacle, and thus one can break the waking continnum by dreaming a different state of “I” every time"
Yes. We do not consider it fake. We are quite rightfully lost in our thoughts. That being said, one's waking "I" and dream "I" are generally the same. That is, we are generally not different people in the dream. But even when we are, it is generally an imperfect union. I drempt I was a samurai last night, but throughout I had a sense of sort of merged identities, rather than a full synthesis, specifically in that earlier I was quite myself, strangling snakes and rats in my bedroom. But beyond my weird subconscious, you are correct in saying it is a break in the normal continuum of "Ihood" by placing us in fantastical situations, but when we return to the normal world, if we remember the dream those memories are still present with us, we have experienced them, but it is just not real in the sense that our waking life is real, and the experiences are usually not so intense as to fundamentally change our view of ourselves, although clearly it does in a moderate way. That is to say, we do experience a slight analogue to an amnesiac returning to his past life through recovered memories, but it is not generally intensive enough for such to make a great psychic impact.
But once again, this does not point to a spirit, merely a mind that can be wrapped up in fantasy enough that it does not consider its memories.
"****At the very least it indicates that she had a conscious existence in that period of history, which confounds the view that this body at this particular time is the all in all for our conscious existence"
It does not necessarily demand this, although it is admittedly the most rational answer. And even if so, it does not necessitate it as transcendental.
"*****Dreaming is not outside the body but within the mind/intelligence – dreaming bears no relation to the chemistry of our body, or grossly corporeal sense of “i”"
Fevers - a physical state - can impact dreams. This is well known. Other sicknesses and physical states can do this too. Bed wetters often have dreams of running water.
"*****Not only not aware of the body, but when you are dreaming you become aware of a completely different body (you can be fat/ thin or even an animal) and its not that you are pretending to be something different, like a fancy dress party, while dreaming you operate out of a completely different sense of “i” – isn’t that a break in the continuum of thinking that one’s grossly corporeal self is the “I”?"
One can indeed have a sensation of false bodies. But this stands to reason, as we're imagining sensory input. Can one not imagine the taste of lemons when one wants to? Or conjure up the smell of perfume when one wants to? A dream does this but without the unfocused nature of thoughts constantly intruded by conscious awareness. When we think we're an animal, we basically have an image of how we think an animal would feel and correspond it to that. Before I ever had whiskey, for instance, I drank it in my dreams, but when I did finally have whiskey, it tasted differently than it did in my dreams. Why? Because I simply imagined the taste beforehand.
"****Of course if you are not aware that you are aware you will not be aware of the time because to be aware of the time is to be conscious – if a person could recall the time they were unaware there would be no meaning to deep dreamless sleep as an example of the being aware that one is not aware."
Yes, precisely.
"*****Then why does an Irishmen get upset upon hearing an Irish joke unless there is a sense of identifying with the body and not just the mind. The same with all designations of body – age, colour, height, weight etc etc "
We identify with the body in so much as it is a part of our normal course of affairs to do something related to it, to have identities requiring it, et cetera, et cetera. But what I meant is this: Primarily we are minds. No one would say that they are primarily their hands, or primarily their feet, but if you asked what makes them a person, one would answer it is their mind.
"*****If we didin’t detect the absence of awareness there would be no break in the continuum – in otherwords you would snap out of dreamless sleep to the immediate second that you were last conscious and would have no way to detect it unless you looked at a clock or someone told you that you had just risen from a long (or short) sleep"
That actually does occur very often. People who fall asleep for a brief period of time - but not an instant - can go on speaking or doing what they were doing as if nothing hadpassed. Similarly, when we are asleep we generally don't feel that any time has passed, only that we know that such time has passed as that is the general way things go, as well as the fact that the clock tells us much time has passed. Or if we do notice, it is generally from other cues, such as hearing birds sing in the morning.
"*****The laws are not spiritual – there are two types of laws – sva-dharma (laws that pertain to the body) and sanatana dharma (laws that pertain to the spirit self)"
So these are part of the former?
"***then they would be presentations of sanatana dharma, or things for everyone to follow
Do not they come into conflict with some of the above exclusions?
"**** But then if a king walks around like a human punching bag the resulting violence on the persons who have sought his shelter (robbers, plunders etc) would constitute a bit of violence resulting from his so called non violence – resultant action is a complicated thing, - "
In which case one is damned if one does damned if one doesn't, no?
"*****There are different religions for different situations – the general principle religion operates on is that the rituals and ceremonies of religion automatically manifest when persons perceive something more wonderous or greater than themselves (for instance it’s not uncommon for sociologists to attribute our attitude to technology as religious”"
If there are different religions for different situations, how is this really that valid as anything but some sort of whimsy on the part of humanity?
"*****Let me clarify the explanation – there is sreyas (long term benefit) and preyas (short term benefit) – successful religious principles operate on the principle of sreyas – any fool can detect what is the best for their immediate pleasure (a fools happiness) but long term happiness requuires a bit of foresight and wisdom (even speaking materially) – hence religious principles actually add to material prosperity, even though material prosperity is not the goal of religion (even if it is accepted as such by the less intelligent religious practioners) – and if you don’t want to get out of karma then you spend an eternity suffering the trials and tribulations of material existence until you do."
Yes. Trials and tribulations as well as joy and pleasures. This material existence is not without its enjoyable aspects.
But as you said, religions focus on "long-term benefit", which is still a benefit. Which is fine and dandy, but it also vindicates benefit, so we can say that even short-term benefit is fine to appreciate.
"***Basically it’s a question whether you believe your sense or authority – the nature of illusionis that it shapes our perception of the cause – how will examining the cause help a person who sees a rope as a snake and stop them running away?"
You will notice that if they run away and then come back and see the rope, they will almost assuredly realize their folly and think of themselves as quite foolish beforehand.
"*****Then compare god and money and see which has more value"
I can eat with money, I starve with God.
I am reminded of a saying of some of the more skeptical Moslems: "Trust in God, but tie your camel tight."
"***** It smore inclusive terminology - Spiritual spark includes all sub catergories such as sexual object – it doesn’t deny the reality of sex object but it does indicate that the sex object is an ontologically weaker proposition (since the current idea of gender, or even age which determines sexual attraction, is not an eternal quality of the spiritual spark)"
Could not we turn this around and say that sex object also includes "spiritual spark"? In that even the "spiritual spark" can be an object of sexual lust?
"***Why prevalue? Compare wearing blue glasses with not wearing them"
Why prevalue? Precisely. This has been my point. Why prevalue even "spiritual spark"? Or "religion"? What I am suggesting is what you are suggesting here: Wearing no glasses whatsoever.
"*****Then you are assuming that religion is merely another relative way of seeing and not the means of discerning the nature of the absolute truth – which is also a value – there is no escaping values, only the question of discerning which values are greater and which are lesser according to their correlation to truth"
Then here is a question for you: In what way is religion the ultimate way of seeing the absolute truth and what makes it better than every other pre-value placed upon things?
"*****Therefore there is a focus in religion in being free from lust wrath etc etc which colours perception – before you do thi your seeing is tainted , no matter what your IQ"
This is good, but you also cannot see things simply "in light of God", if God requires a preconception, too. Better to see things "in light of themselves".
I'll reply to the rest soon.
"*******This vision of detachment is not possible (at least with 100% surety ) unless one can see the owner, god – the alternative to not perceiving god is that you wind up attached to matter (and suffer accordingly)"
Why is it not? Could not one simply say "wow, I do not own this, because clearly it will pass away" and be done with it?
"*****Yes - Life is beyond chemistry"
Well as we primarily concern ourselves with the interaction with a person's mind, it stands to reason that when their mind no longer functions and will never function again - such as death - that we recognize the person with whom we had a relationship with is gone. This does not necessitate a conception of life beyond the physical foundations for consciousness, only a recognition that the physical foundations no longer exist, hence the consciousness is annihilated.
"*****The mind (distinct from intelligence) ascribes a value to those perceptions – for instance a piece of bamboo is not focused on by the intelligence because we do not find it tasty to eat but if you had a termites mind you would love it"
A termite may indeed see something and view it as food, as well as us, but is it not possible to simply sit and stare, and not make such evaluations? I believe many open-eyed meditational practices aspire and (apparently) achieve this state.
"*****Are you trying to say that there is no impetus for name, fame and adoration amongst mathmeticians and the like for being the best at their science? Or even on a more basic level the feeling of pleasure at solving a complex problem as opposed to the dissapointment of error strongly indicates desire – how can one begin to accomplish something without desire? – one person may drop out of high school mathmatics and another will go on to become a PHD due to the influence of desire"
I had merely meant the process of computation. That is. The process which allows us to make sense of such statement as 3 * 6 = 18. That is to say, some people may indeed get something out of it, but the process does not seem to be rooted in desire in and of itself, only its impetus.
"***When a bank teller goes to sleep he may envision himself as the wife of a medieval norweigien tomato farmer – isn’t that a distinct break in the continuum?"
In so much as his prior identity is not being referenced throughout the dream, yes. That being said, such identity is exceedingly temporal, and when we awaken and return back to our normal selves, we are a synthesis of both if we remember, even if we remember the dream as a dream, and thus has minimal impact on our personality.
"*****If I delete your memory banks how can you restore them unless you have a back up somewhere? And if you only manage to salvage 75% of your existing files how does this constitute a new body of work completely distinct from the previous body of work?"
The process is clearly not a full deletion, merely a damaging of our capacity to access them. With the recovery of such capacities, the memories are once again available. It is like losing the key to a door. So long as one no longer has the key, one cannot open the door. But once the key is returned or you get a new one, the door opens and you can enter the building.
"****But while you are dreaming it is real – inotherwords you experience real emmotional responses to stimuli, and these experiences are operating out of a perceived sense of real “I” which is completely different from one’s waking “I” – th eonly difference between the waking I and the dreaming I is that the dreaming I does not have to periodically return to occupying the same recptacle, and thus one can break the waking continnum by dreaming a different state of “I” every time"
Yes. We do not consider it fake. We are quite rightfully lost in our thoughts. That being said, one's waking "I" and dream "I" are generally the same. That is, we are generally not different people in the dream. But even when we are, it is generally an imperfect union. I drempt I was a samurai last night, but throughout I had a sense of sort of merged identities, rather than a full synthesis, specifically in that earlier I was quite myself, strangling snakes and rats in my bedroom. But beyond my weird subconscious, you are correct in saying it is a break in the normal continuum of "Ihood" by placing us in fantastical situations, but when we return to the normal world, if we remember the dream those memories are still present with us, we have experienced them, but it is just not real in the sense that our waking life is real, and the experiences are usually not so intense as to fundamentally change our view of ourselves, although clearly it does in a moderate way. That is to say, we do experience a slight analogue to an amnesiac returning to his past life through recovered memories, but it is not generally intensive enough for such to make a great psychic impact.
But once again, this does not point to a spirit, merely a mind that can be wrapped up in fantasy enough that it does not consider its memories.
"****At the very least it indicates that she had a conscious existence in that period of history, which confounds the view that this body at this particular time is the all in all for our conscious existence"
It does not necessarily demand this, although it is admittedly the most rational answer. And even if so, it does not necessitate it as transcendental.
"*****Dreaming is not outside the body but within the mind/intelligence – dreaming bears no relation to the chemistry of our body, or grossly corporeal sense of “i”"
Fevers - a physical state - can impact dreams. This is well known. Other sicknesses and physical states can do this too. Bed wetters often have dreams of running water.
"*****Not only not aware of the body, but when you are dreaming you become aware of a completely different body (you can be fat/ thin or even an animal) and its not that you are pretending to be something different, like a fancy dress party, while dreaming you operate out of a completely different sense of “i” – isn’t that a break in the continuum of thinking that one’s grossly corporeal self is the “I”?"
One can indeed have a sensation of false bodies. But this stands to reason, as we're imagining sensory input. Can one not imagine the taste of lemons when one wants to? Or conjure up the smell of perfume when one wants to? A dream does this but without the unfocused nature of thoughts constantly intruded by conscious awareness. When we think we're an animal, we basically have an image of how we think an animal would feel and correspond it to that. Before I ever had whiskey, for instance, I drank it in my dreams, but when I did finally have whiskey, it tasted differently than it did in my dreams. Why? Because I simply imagined the taste beforehand.
"****Of course if you are not aware that you are aware you will not be aware of the time because to be aware of the time is to be conscious – if a person could recall the time they were unaware there would be no meaning to deep dreamless sleep as an example of the being aware that one is not aware."
Yes, precisely.
"*****Then why does an Irishmen get upset upon hearing an Irish joke unless there is a sense of identifying with the body and not just the mind. The same with all designations of body – age, colour, height, weight etc etc "
We identify with the body in so much as it is a part of our normal course of affairs to do something related to it, to have identities requiring it, et cetera, et cetera. But what I meant is this: Primarily we are minds. No one would say that they are primarily their hands, or primarily their feet, but if you asked what makes them a person, one would answer it is their mind.
"*****If we didin’t detect the absence of awareness there would be no break in the continuum – in otherwords you would snap out of dreamless sleep to the immediate second that you were last conscious and would have no way to detect it unless you looked at a clock or someone told you that you had just risen from a long (or short) sleep"
That actually does occur very often. People who fall asleep for a brief period of time - but not an instant - can go on speaking or doing what they were doing as if nothing hadpassed. Similarly, when we are asleep we generally don't feel that any time has passed, only that we know that such time has passed as that is the general way things go, as well as the fact that the clock tells us much time has passed. Or if we do notice, it is generally from other cues, such as hearing birds sing in the morning.
"*****The laws are not spiritual – there are two types of laws – sva-dharma (laws that pertain to the body) and sanatana dharma (laws that pertain to the spirit self)"
So these are part of the former?
"***then they would be presentations of sanatana dharma, or things for everyone to follow
Do not they come into conflict with some of the above exclusions?
"**** But then if a king walks around like a human punching bag the resulting violence on the persons who have sought his shelter (robbers, plunders etc) would constitute a bit of violence resulting from his so called non violence – resultant action is a complicated thing, - "
In which case one is damned if one does damned if one doesn't, no?
"*****There are different religions for different situations – the general principle religion operates on is that the rituals and ceremonies of religion automatically manifest when persons perceive something more wonderous or greater than themselves (for instance it’s not uncommon for sociologists to attribute our attitude to technology as religious”"
If there are different religions for different situations, how is this really that valid as anything but some sort of whimsy on the part of humanity?
"*****Let me clarify the explanation – there is sreyas (long term benefit) and preyas (short term benefit) – successful religious principles operate on the principle of sreyas – any fool can detect what is the best for their immediate pleasure (a fools happiness) but long term happiness requuires a bit of foresight and wisdom (even speaking materially) – hence religious principles actually add to material prosperity, even though material prosperity is not the goal of religion (even if it is accepted as such by the less intelligent religious practioners) – and if you don’t want to get out of karma then you spend an eternity suffering the trials and tribulations of material existence until you do."
Yes. Trials and tribulations as well as joy and pleasures. This material existence is not without its enjoyable aspects.
But as you said, religions focus on "long-term benefit", which is still a benefit. Which is fine and dandy, but it also vindicates benefit, so we can say that even short-term benefit is fine to appreciate.
"***Basically it’s a question whether you believe your sense or authority – the nature of illusionis that it shapes our perception of the cause – how will examining the cause help a person who sees a rope as a snake and stop them running away?"
You will notice that if they run away and then come back and see the rope, they will almost assuredly realize their folly and think of themselves as quite foolish beforehand.
"*****Then compare god and money and see which has more value"
I can eat with money, I starve with God.
I am reminded of a saying of some of the more skeptical Moslems: "Trust in God, but tie your camel tight."
"***** It smore inclusive terminology - Spiritual spark includes all sub catergories such as sexual object – it doesn’t deny the reality of sex object but it does indicate that the sex object is an ontologically weaker proposition (since the current idea of gender, or even age which determines sexual attraction, is not an eternal quality of the spiritual spark)"
Could not we turn this around and say that sex object also includes "spiritual spark"? In that even the "spiritual spark" can be an object of sexual lust?
"***Why prevalue? Compare wearing blue glasses with not wearing them"
Why prevalue? Precisely. This has been my point. Why prevalue even "spiritual spark"? Or "religion"? What I am suggesting is what you are suggesting here: Wearing no glasses whatsoever.
"*****Then you are assuming that religion is merely another relative way of seeing and not the means of discerning the nature of the absolute truth – which is also a value – there is no escaping values, only the question of discerning which values are greater and which are lesser according to their correlation to truth"
Then here is a question for you: In what way is religion the ultimate way of seeing the absolute truth and what makes it better than every other pre-value placed upon things?
"*****Therefore there is a focus in religion in being free from lust wrath etc etc which colours perception – before you do thi your seeing is tainted , no matter what your IQ"
This is good, but you also cannot see things simply "in light of God", if God requires a preconception, too. Better to see things "in light of themselves".
I'll reply to the rest soon.
"***So the testing goes on until you understand that god is infallible – therefore the perfection of religion, surrender to god, is a gradual process, even for a practioner who accepts scripture – its not that one jumps on the liberated platform by declaring “I believe” "
A proof of infallibility is essentially impossible unless that being is so constructed for its ability to lie to be a logical contradiction.
"***Understanding god requires a theoretical foundation – ie ascribing qualities to object is the primary means to discerning the object"
Ascribing or observing?
"****If I told you it was cold at the beach and it was cold at the beach how is it not true – even though you are in Belgium would you give a special ontological status to Belgium over China simply because China was not directly perceivable to you?"
If you told me it was cold at the beach and it was cold at the beach, what you said was clearly true, but I do not know it. I can believe you and be right, but I could just as well be wrong. My knowledge of "it is cold at the beach" is not justified and it is only accidentally a true belief.
I say the next coin toss will produce heads. It does. Did I know it in advance? Nope. A guess.
"*****So in other words, No?"
Only practically. If I really cared enough to check it, I would have to check it or show immortality to be impossible for human beings.
"****How is it possible when it is linearly impossible for us to do “full investigation” – What are the resources of “fulness” that we have access to to perform a “full investigation” – Actually we never do anything in the name of “full investigation”"
It is not linearly impossible for us to do a full investigation. I can open the fridge and find the milk. That being said, the full extent of empirical knowledge would seem impossible to know, but the philosophical truths are capable of being known in full and at all times by all rational creatures. They only take thought and mental effort to reach.
But you are correct, most statements we do not verify to the fullest extent.
"*****So why say that consciousness is a material phrnomena if the chemical make up of consciousness is not apparent to you?"
Two reasons:
1. It shows all the signs of being a relational entity, I.E. it develops when certain organic compounds are arranged in such and such a way. It mayn't be as obvious as the relational aspects of a bridge or a house, though.
2. It is more reasonable to not add entities (transcendence) to a phenomenon that has no reason to suspect is outside the material in and of itself.
"******But if purchasing power is proof of a gold coin it is irrelevant"
Counterfit coins. Better to bite into it, as the old-timey shoe-shiners would do. That is, investigate the manner.
"****Are seeing through anger, lust and envy equal in value to seeing without them?"
Equal if another paradigm is set up. Less if none is.
That is, every paradigm is ultimately equal delusions until one excepts reality without such viewpoints and with an honest drive towards objective knowledge.
"*****The difference is that there are different values – like a person in ignorance has one type of seeing, a person in passion has another and a personin goodness a third – it is only on the platform of goodness that one can actually see things as they are"
How does the platform of goodness give us the real truth?
"****Actually during the submarine siege of Britain during WW2 this is what the british government did – it wasn’t smelly like stool of course,"
I am glad I was not alive then!
Really, I got to say that is pretty revolting.
"*****The pig illustrates how a living entity can take delight in ignorance –"
In ignorance or in his own preferences?
"****Well where is consciousness in matter? Seeing god innvolves also seeing matter but one does not ascribe superior value (ie consciousness) to it but rather sees it as th e property of god"
Consciousness is in matter as bridge is in wood. Relational. Seeing God as a conscious being must describe how God can be a consciousness divorced from a body, hold such things as thought, et cetera, et cetera. None of these things usually prove succesful even to a moderate extent.
"***therefore religion without philosophy is as useless as science without a sense of the absolute"
I would agree with this statement.
"*******On what basis do you determine the capacity of the material cosmos and also the capacity of god?"
Arguments from necessity. I believe I have given you mine, but here it is if I did not.
Consider this: Ultimately, you can either have something or you can have nothing. That is, the two categories of reality are existence and non-existence. Then, were existence to come to an end, we'd by necessity have to replace it with non-existence. Yet non-existence cannot exist - were it to exist, it would cease to be non-existence - thus existence can only have existence beyond it and thus must it exist ad infinitum.
Another argument: Existence and non-existence are absolutely opposite to one another and thus can one take the propeties of either, negate them, and have the other. In nothingness there is no-space, thus in existence there must be space, but not just space with limits, but infinite space, for only such absolute space could be the opposite of absolute no-space.
"*****So therefore it is given that one can understand enough about god to qualify for liberation (ie one can know enough about him to be socialised around his service) but that it is impossible to know him in full. There is a name of god, adhoksaja, which means beyond the purview of the senses – this is due to his unlimited potencies "
We could not empirically view the totality of God, no. That being said, it is not necessary. If God is a perfect, necessary thing, then he can be known only through logical/philosophical reasoning.
"******Why can’t the absolute truth be found in god? "
That depends on if God is the absolute truth. Which depends strongly on what God is.
"*****No – not everything is up for our scrutiny and verification – because we have a limited mind and body – there are some tricks that you cannot even teach a new dog (such as how to reverse park a semi trailer only using the rear vision mirrors)"
Then we can never trust God on these things, because we have no way of doing it ourselves. However, that also seems quite impossible that we should not be able to know everything about a necessary being, when all that which is necessary can be discerned.
"*****Yes – all potential energy exists in god"
Okay. So then God never creates, only uses potential?
"******And if your logic owes its existence to limited experience and knowledge?"
Experience would only count so much as we are dealing with empirical facts, I.E. that horses are alive, that the sky is blue, that rocks have mass. Logic, on the other hand, is independent from experience in the sense that one can deal with logic purely divorced from reality to test its essential and absolute validity. For instance, it is impossible to claim that the Law of Identity and Non-Contradiciton do not work, on the foundation that if they did not, they would prove themselves to actually be. That is, just like the "there are no absolute truths" demonstrates its fallacy and the truthfulness of "there are absolute truths".
If I were to adopt religious terminology, I would say that logic is the divine aspect of human cognition, empirical evaluation the mortal.
"****It is not degrading – like he never becomes a stool eating pig like a conditioned living entity – his case is just of increasing whereas we have the opportunity for fluctuation according to our attitude to free will – that’s the difference between our free will and gods free will"
Increasing awareness implies degradation of all former states. Just as Newton is not held in as high esteem because we have found that Einstein had some things to say which Newton did not and which Newton was shown to be wrong upon, so too would God if he "increased in his awareness" would degrading his former states.
"*****If there are eternal elements that means they must not degrade, otherwise they would be temporal. Whether it is true to equate form with matter, or whether spiritual things also have form (form that doesn’t degrade) is precisely the question."
Presumably, all which has form must have a body, no? And is not body a material thing?
Moreover, we have not shown the necessary eternity of transcendent things. I think we're still discussing this below.
"*******Thoughts are symptoms of a transcendental source – whether the thoughts are material or transcendental depends on the consciousness (conditioned or unconditioned)"
Concerning their content or their substance? Similarly, would you say that God has had multiple thoughts, perhaps even an infinite number of them?
"*****When you pull a plug from the fan it spins a few moments even though there is no electricity"
Some reflex actions can occur even after the creature is long dead. Reflex actions in bugs are often found to do that.
"*****relational to consciousness because a dead person cannot move, at least no where near to the degree that he can be mistaken for a living one"
No, relational to material things which produce consciousness, I.E. organic bodies.
"*****eternity is a quality of something transcendental, just like heat is a quality of fire"
Consciousness produces thoughts which have all the "transcendent qualities" of consciousness, do they not? Yet they are ephemeral. A thought comes and goes.
"***** The mind and body are recconciable – there is a distinction between the mind and the soul, namely a distinction of eternity"
In that the soul is eternal whereas the mind is temporary and based on individuated life?
"*****Then tell what is the truth about consciousness – truth is necessary for existence but if you have only relative truths you have not approached th e superior onotology of existence"
The truth about consciousnesses is that all signs point to it being a relational entity brought about by the conditions of life. If - and it is a big if - consciousness can be shared over many individual lifetimes, we can postulate that this relation can engrain itself somehow onto things - perhaps electromagnetism, if some phenomena around purported ghosts are any indication - and thus keep a semblance of continuum betwixt two distinct lifeforms which nonetheless share that same consciousness-spark.
"*****Is this a change in stance form the previous statement?"
No. I never claimed that wills were present outside of conscious beings.
"****God is not dependant on laws, just as the sun is not dependant on the sunshine"
Assuredly God is dependent on laws, or have you found a way to refute how God must be subject to the law of result in order to produce results?
"*****This is why god is both eternal and the cause of all causes and we are merely eternal – an eternal fire produces eternal heat
."
I am not exactly sure what you are postulating. Are you now agreeing that God and the law of result are one? Or that God can make causes without effects (an absurd notion)?
"***And that something is god, at the very least you can not define the non-degrading elements of matter that would make it eternal"
The non-degrading elements of existence are threefold: Space (energy/matter as well as dimension), time (self explanatory), and relation (the property which allows for bridge and house not to be found in the wood which they are created by).
I call the above the three fundamentals and construe them as having a triune nature which disallows them to exist apart from one another and that all can be explained by reference to a combination of them. If you would like further explanations and elaborations on any of the above, do tell me.
But yes, I actually agree with you that we might call existence God. Where we disagree is whether God/existence have a quality called "transcendence" and various other points.
"*****So are you saying that if you see a sportscar cruise down the street you think it was designed by the ferrari company or it just happened due to a freak in the laws of cause without an intelligent designer? Cause can be broken by the appropriate level of intelligence – god’s intelligence is greater than ours"
No, I do not. As I view causality as stemming from a fundamental of existence(relation) which cannot be broken, even by God, whom also depends on it. The "normal causes" may be able to be broken by a being of sufficient power, though. That is to say, God could theoretically assemble a Ferrari from raw elements in an instant.
"****Unless there is a unique quality of the causelessthing that cannot be replicated by any of the effects"
This unique quality must be quantified and demonstrated to be so.
"****How do you know that the universe doesn’t have a cause?"
If casuality doesn't hold true in all cases and at all time, anything could theoretically not have a cause.
"****Saying the causeless quality of the universe is bereft of consciousness (ie impersonal) doesn’t explain the phenomena of consciousness -"
How do you solve this phenomena? By postulating it one half of the categories of existence which precedes the other half (matter). Yet you do not show us how this consciousness could be so divorced from matter, nor many other things.
"*****Where would you go to be removed from god? "
Precisely. We could not go anywhere. God is omnipresent. However, supposing that we -could-, we'd be annihilated, and God having lost something of himself, could no longer be himself, as he'd lack infinity, eternity, and everything.
"****perhaps – if you don’t know what is the cause of water you can experience difficulty in its absence"
To what extent are you claiming this, though? Practical or absolute cause of water?
"So then material things are real, jsut temporal?
***** yes"
Okay.
"****** All of the perceprions are illusory, since it is only by the existence of a soul within the material body that the breast has any value – who is interested in a dead woman’s breast?"
Necrophiles, but that is besides the point.
But anyway, is it again illusory or just a matter of subjective value? It is a temporal thing, in that it is found in the subjective whims of a single being - or really, many beings, as many people value breasts as an object of sexual attraction - but it is certainly real that such people value such things. Moreover, a breast can be beautiful and even sexually appealing without being alive. There are some very beautiful statues of female nudes.
"*****Without trees (also consciousness) wooden bridges or houses do not exist"
Trees are conscious, yes, but clearly we are not taking "tree consciousness" when we blocks or boards of wood from it. That is, we are using the organic compound of wood.
"******Then why bother endeavouring for a once in a lifetime experience since you are obviously just setting yourself up for a horrible experience? If this is really your view think most others would disagree"
Because at the time the experience is joyful. It is only when it is replaced that it is horrible relative to the greater experience.
Consider this:
A man who has 1 dollar suddenly has 1000 dollars. Great news!
Another man who has 1 million dollars, suddenly has 1000 dollars. Horrible news!
What can be happy at the time, can be made unhappy by other times in relation to that new time.
"*****the difference between god’s form and that of the growing man is that the rope would continually be two inches short, no matter how many pieces of rope you tied to it – in other words he is the form of omnipotency – BTW there’s a whole chapter in the gita (titled the universal form) that goes on all about this"
This is an accurate enough analogy to infinity, in that infinity could never be reached (it would "always be beyond reach" if it was infinite) but to once again construe God as a being which is not infinite, would not be to afford anything but an imperfection of constant size differences and constant limitations. An eternal cycle of limitation to limitation, in fact!
"****So there is a difference between you and your shirt, namely consciousness"
Consciousness and a whole lot of material differences, although everything, including the "space/matter" which makes up the relational entity of consciousness, could be reduced to simply "space/matter". But yes, chiefly a living being is categorized by life which entails consciousness.
"****I have never seen a woman in labour but I still have an understanding"
You have an understand then that is based on hear-say. You do not know the experience fully.
"******The reason one can never know exactly how god moves matter is because that is a quality that distinguishes god from the living entity – you can know enough to trace the source but as far establishing yourself as “god” by being able to observe and replicate god’s potencies it will never work, just as endeavouring to be your own father is not constituitionally possible"
Then we never have any reason to suspect that God us either telling us the truth or that God moves it at all.
"*****The above statement is mostly true, except that there is also the transcendence of our own existence in the equation – because god is assisting us in control of matter we have the illusion of potency in this world"
So we have -some- power, but not -enough- and God supplements it?
"******lol – he’s not teaching rifle manufacture"
Well he should! We could use some better ones. But anyway: Does God teach us merely the application or the full knowledge of the thing?
"*****It emanated from god, just like heat emmanates from fire – god is eternal and we are eternal but god is the cause of all causes and we are not
. "
Yet if we have imperfections and came from God, could not out free-will be similarly imperfect?
"*****Does a rope bite a person if they think it is a snake?"
No. As this would be a physical act which cannot result from a mental mistake which does not inspire positive action. It would be a mental mistake to say that the rope was a snake and that it bit one, though.
"*****You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink – application requires the appropriate attitude to free will"
Yet God could not make it so that the application could not be done incorrectly in anyway?
"***But I never said what was possible for god is possible for the jiva (living entity) "
It stands to reason that if God is free and perfect, then God could also create or augment all things to be free and perfect, as free and perfect are not absurdities to pair together. It would even be a failure on the part of God not to do so.
A proof of infallibility is essentially impossible unless that being is so constructed for its ability to lie to be a logical contradiction.
"***Understanding god requires a theoretical foundation – ie ascribing qualities to object is the primary means to discerning the object"
Ascribing or observing?
"****If I told you it was cold at the beach and it was cold at the beach how is it not true – even though you are in Belgium would you give a special ontological status to Belgium over China simply because China was not directly perceivable to you?"
If you told me it was cold at the beach and it was cold at the beach, what you said was clearly true, but I do not know it. I can believe you and be right, but I could just as well be wrong. My knowledge of "it is cold at the beach" is not justified and it is only accidentally a true belief.
I say the next coin toss will produce heads. It does. Did I know it in advance? Nope. A guess.
"*****So in other words, No?"
Only practically. If I really cared enough to check it, I would have to check it or show immortality to be impossible for human beings.
"****How is it possible when it is linearly impossible for us to do “full investigation” – What are the resources of “fulness” that we have access to to perform a “full investigation” – Actually we never do anything in the name of “full investigation”"
It is not linearly impossible for us to do a full investigation. I can open the fridge and find the milk. That being said, the full extent of empirical knowledge would seem impossible to know, but the philosophical truths are capable of being known in full and at all times by all rational creatures. They only take thought and mental effort to reach.
But you are correct, most statements we do not verify to the fullest extent.
"*****So why say that consciousness is a material phrnomena if the chemical make up of consciousness is not apparent to you?"
Two reasons:
1. It shows all the signs of being a relational entity, I.E. it develops when certain organic compounds are arranged in such and such a way. It mayn't be as obvious as the relational aspects of a bridge or a house, though.
2. It is more reasonable to not add entities (transcendence) to a phenomenon that has no reason to suspect is outside the material in and of itself.
"******But if purchasing power is proof of a gold coin it is irrelevant"
Counterfit coins. Better to bite into it, as the old-timey shoe-shiners would do. That is, investigate the manner.
"****Are seeing through anger, lust and envy equal in value to seeing without them?"
Equal if another paradigm is set up. Less if none is.
That is, every paradigm is ultimately equal delusions until one excepts reality without such viewpoints and with an honest drive towards objective knowledge.
"*****The difference is that there are different values – like a person in ignorance has one type of seeing, a person in passion has another and a personin goodness a third – it is only on the platform of goodness that one can actually see things as they are"
How does the platform of goodness give us the real truth?
"****Actually during the submarine siege of Britain during WW2 this is what the british government did – it wasn’t smelly like stool of course,"
I am glad I was not alive then!
Really, I got to say that is pretty revolting.
"*****The pig illustrates how a living entity can take delight in ignorance –"
In ignorance or in his own preferences?
"****Well where is consciousness in matter? Seeing god innvolves also seeing matter but one does not ascribe superior value (ie consciousness) to it but rather sees it as th e property of god"
Consciousness is in matter as bridge is in wood. Relational. Seeing God as a conscious being must describe how God can be a consciousness divorced from a body, hold such things as thought, et cetera, et cetera. None of these things usually prove succesful even to a moderate extent.
"***therefore religion without philosophy is as useless as science without a sense of the absolute"
I would agree with this statement.
"*******On what basis do you determine the capacity of the material cosmos and also the capacity of god?"
Arguments from necessity. I believe I have given you mine, but here it is if I did not.
Consider this: Ultimately, you can either have something or you can have nothing. That is, the two categories of reality are existence and non-existence. Then, were existence to come to an end, we'd by necessity have to replace it with non-existence. Yet non-existence cannot exist - were it to exist, it would cease to be non-existence - thus existence can only have existence beyond it and thus must it exist ad infinitum.
Another argument: Existence and non-existence are absolutely opposite to one another and thus can one take the propeties of either, negate them, and have the other. In nothingness there is no-space, thus in existence there must be space, but not just space with limits, but infinite space, for only such absolute space could be the opposite of absolute no-space.
"*****So therefore it is given that one can understand enough about god to qualify for liberation (ie one can know enough about him to be socialised around his service) but that it is impossible to know him in full. There is a name of god, adhoksaja, which means beyond the purview of the senses – this is due to his unlimited potencies "
We could not empirically view the totality of God, no. That being said, it is not necessary. If God is a perfect, necessary thing, then he can be known only through logical/philosophical reasoning.
"******Why can’t the absolute truth be found in god? "
That depends on if God is the absolute truth. Which depends strongly on what God is.
"*****No – not everything is up for our scrutiny and verification – because we have a limited mind and body – there are some tricks that you cannot even teach a new dog (such as how to reverse park a semi trailer only using the rear vision mirrors)"
Then we can never trust God on these things, because we have no way of doing it ourselves. However, that also seems quite impossible that we should not be able to know everything about a necessary being, when all that which is necessary can be discerned.
"*****Yes – all potential energy exists in god"
Okay. So then God never creates, only uses potential?
"******And if your logic owes its existence to limited experience and knowledge?"
Experience would only count so much as we are dealing with empirical facts, I.E. that horses are alive, that the sky is blue, that rocks have mass. Logic, on the other hand, is independent from experience in the sense that one can deal with logic purely divorced from reality to test its essential and absolute validity. For instance, it is impossible to claim that the Law of Identity and Non-Contradiciton do not work, on the foundation that if they did not, they would prove themselves to actually be. That is, just like the "there are no absolute truths" demonstrates its fallacy and the truthfulness of "there are absolute truths".
If I were to adopt religious terminology, I would say that logic is the divine aspect of human cognition, empirical evaluation the mortal.
"****It is not degrading – like he never becomes a stool eating pig like a conditioned living entity – his case is just of increasing whereas we have the opportunity for fluctuation according to our attitude to free will – that’s the difference between our free will and gods free will"
Increasing awareness implies degradation of all former states. Just as Newton is not held in as high esteem because we have found that Einstein had some things to say which Newton did not and which Newton was shown to be wrong upon, so too would God if he "increased in his awareness" would degrading his former states.
"*****If there are eternal elements that means they must not degrade, otherwise they would be temporal. Whether it is true to equate form with matter, or whether spiritual things also have form (form that doesn’t degrade) is precisely the question."
Presumably, all which has form must have a body, no? And is not body a material thing?
Moreover, we have not shown the necessary eternity of transcendent things. I think we're still discussing this below.
"*******Thoughts are symptoms of a transcendental source – whether the thoughts are material or transcendental depends on the consciousness (conditioned or unconditioned)"
Concerning their content or their substance? Similarly, would you say that God has had multiple thoughts, perhaps even an infinite number of them?
"*****When you pull a plug from the fan it spins a few moments even though there is no electricity"
Some reflex actions can occur even after the creature is long dead. Reflex actions in bugs are often found to do that.
"*****relational to consciousness because a dead person cannot move, at least no where near to the degree that he can be mistaken for a living one"
No, relational to material things which produce consciousness, I.E. organic bodies.
"*****eternity is a quality of something transcendental, just like heat is a quality of fire"
Consciousness produces thoughts which have all the "transcendent qualities" of consciousness, do they not? Yet they are ephemeral. A thought comes and goes.
"***** The mind and body are recconciable – there is a distinction between the mind and the soul, namely a distinction of eternity"
In that the soul is eternal whereas the mind is temporary and based on individuated life?
"*****Then tell what is the truth about consciousness – truth is necessary for existence but if you have only relative truths you have not approached th e superior onotology of existence"
The truth about consciousnesses is that all signs point to it being a relational entity brought about by the conditions of life. If - and it is a big if - consciousness can be shared over many individual lifetimes, we can postulate that this relation can engrain itself somehow onto things - perhaps electromagnetism, if some phenomena around purported ghosts are any indication - and thus keep a semblance of continuum betwixt two distinct lifeforms which nonetheless share that same consciousness-spark.
"*****Is this a change in stance form the previous statement?"
No. I never claimed that wills were present outside of conscious beings.
"****God is not dependant on laws, just as the sun is not dependant on the sunshine"
Assuredly God is dependent on laws, or have you found a way to refute how God must be subject to the law of result in order to produce results?
"*****This is why god is both eternal and the cause of all causes and we are merely eternal – an eternal fire produces eternal heat
."
I am not exactly sure what you are postulating. Are you now agreeing that God and the law of result are one? Or that God can make causes without effects (an absurd notion)?
"***And that something is god, at the very least you can not define the non-degrading elements of matter that would make it eternal"
The non-degrading elements of existence are threefold: Space (energy/matter as well as dimension), time (self explanatory), and relation (the property which allows for bridge and house not to be found in the wood which they are created by).
I call the above the three fundamentals and construe them as having a triune nature which disallows them to exist apart from one another and that all can be explained by reference to a combination of them. If you would like further explanations and elaborations on any of the above, do tell me.
But yes, I actually agree with you that we might call existence God. Where we disagree is whether God/existence have a quality called "transcendence" and various other points.
"*****So are you saying that if you see a sportscar cruise down the street you think it was designed by the ferrari company or it just happened due to a freak in the laws of cause without an intelligent designer? Cause can be broken by the appropriate level of intelligence – god’s intelligence is greater than ours"
No, I do not. As I view causality as stemming from a fundamental of existence(relation) which cannot be broken, even by God, whom also depends on it. The "normal causes" may be able to be broken by a being of sufficient power, though. That is to say, God could theoretically assemble a Ferrari from raw elements in an instant.
"****Unless there is a unique quality of the causelessthing that cannot be replicated by any of the effects"
This unique quality must be quantified and demonstrated to be so.
"****How do you know that the universe doesn’t have a cause?"
If casuality doesn't hold true in all cases and at all time, anything could theoretically not have a cause.
"****Saying the causeless quality of the universe is bereft of consciousness (ie impersonal) doesn’t explain the phenomena of consciousness -"
How do you solve this phenomena? By postulating it one half of the categories of existence which precedes the other half (matter). Yet you do not show us how this consciousness could be so divorced from matter, nor many other things.
"*****Where would you go to be removed from god? "
Precisely. We could not go anywhere. God is omnipresent. However, supposing that we -could-, we'd be annihilated, and God having lost something of himself, could no longer be himself, as he'd lack infinity, eternity, and everything.
"****perhaps – if you don’t know what is the cause of water you can experience difficulty in its absence"
To what extent are you claiming this, though? Practical or absolute cause of water?
"So then material things are real, jsut temporal?
***** yes"
Okay.
"****** All of the perceprions are illusory, since it is only by the existence of a soul within the material body that the breast has any value – who is interested in a dead woman’s breast?"
Necrophiles, but that is besides the point.
But anyway, is it again illusory or just a matter of subjective value? It is a temporal thing, in that it is found in the subjective whims of a single being - or really, many beings, as many people value breasts as an object of sexual attraction - but it is certainly real that such people value such things. Moreover, a breast can be beautiful and even sexually appealing without being alive. There are some very beautiful statues of female nudes.
"*****Without trees (also consciousness) wooden bridges or houses do not exist"
Trees are conscious, yes, but clearly we are not taking "tree consciousness" when we blocks or boards of wood from it. That is, we are using the organic compound of wood.
"******Then why bother endeavouring for a once in a lifetime experience since you are obviously just setting yourself up for a horrible experience? If this is really your view think most others would disagree"
Because at the time the experience is joyful. It is only when it is replaced that it is horrible relative to the greater experience.
Consider this:
A man who has 1 dollar suddenly has 1000 dollars. Great news!
Another man who has 1 million dollars, suddenly has 1000 dollars. Horrible news!
What can be happy at the time, can be made unhappy by other times in relation to that new time.
"*****the difference between god’s form and that of the growing man is that the rope would continually be two inches short, no matter how many pieces of rope you tied to it – in other words he is the form of omnipotency – BTW there’s a whole chapter in the gita (titled the universal form) that goes on all about this"
This is an accurate enough analogy to infinity, in that infinity could never be reached (it would "always be beyond reach" if it was infinite) but to once again construe God as a being which is not infinite, would not be to afford anything but an imperfection of constant size differences and constant limitations. An eternal cycle of limitation to limitation, in fact!
"****So there is a difference between you and your shirt, namely consciousness"
Consciousness and a whole lot of material differences, although everything, including the "space/matter" which makes up the relational entity of consciousness, could be reduced to simply "space/matter". But yes, chiefly a living being is categorized by life which entails consciousness.
"****I have never seen a woman in labour but I still have an understanding"
You have an understand then that is based on hear-say. You do not know the experience fully.
"******The reason one can never know exactly how god moves matter is because that is a quality that distinguishes god from the living entity – you can know enough to trace the source but as far establishing yourself as “god” by being able to observe and replicate god’s potencies it will never work, just as endeavouring to be your own father is not constituitionally possible"
Then we never have any reason to suspect that God us either telling us the truth or that God moves it at all.
"*****The above statement is mostly true, except that there is also the transcendence of our own existence in the equation – because god is assisting us in control of matter we have the illusion of potency in this world"
So we have -some- power, but not -enough- and God supplements it?
"******lol – he’s not teaching rifle manufacture"
Well he should! We could use some better ones. But anyway: Does God teach us merely the application or the full knowledge of the thing?
"*****It emanated from god, just like heat emmanates from fire – god is eternal and we are eternal but god is the cause of all causes and we are not
. "
Yet if we have imperfections and came from God, could not out free-will be similarly imperfect?
"*****Does a rope bite a person if they think it is a snake?"
No. As this would be a physical act which cannot result from a mental mistake which does not inspire positive action. It would be a mental mistake to say that the rope was a snake and that it bit one, though.
"*****You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink – application requires the appropriate attitude to free will"
Yet God could not make it so that the application could not be done incorrectly in anyway?
"***But I never said what was possible for god is possible for the jiva (living entity) "
It stands to reason that if God is free and perfect, then God could also create or augment all things to be free and perfect, as free and perfect are not absurdities to pair together. It would even be a failure on the part of God not to do so.
lightgigantic: “My point is that you have no capacity to determine whether a person is giving truthful or untruthful information about god - you give a special ontological status to your own direct perception and don't have a theoretical framework to approach the direct perception of others - the risk of such an approach is that one is apt to disregarding the relevant as well as the irrelevant because one has no ability to distinguish between the two…….”.
Re: Don’t forget that the idea of God is a hypothesis. God is not posing out there for some person to describe Him truthfully or untruthfully to us! Your above remark, therefore, is beside the point. Your scripture claims that God is ‘full of bliss’! You take this as truthful information. But, in fact, it’s neither truthful nor untruthful; it’s only hypothetical and must be judged according to the available evidence. But you don’t have it. You don’t even remotely have a shred of evidence for God’s supposed existence, let alone having Him full of bliss! In the absence of such evidence, what looks for you like true knowledge is no knowledge at all and groundless.
lightgigantic: “…If you don't apply the relevant epistemology how can one approach the evidence that leads to ontology (If you don't study physics how can you examine the evidence for break throughs in rocket science?)………”.
Re: You have to understand that epistemology is a branch of philosophy, not a method for evaluating the evidence. And in your case, no evidence is given; and hence no method is required.
lightgigantic: “…Seems you are out of touch with scientific practice - can you name any scientists (remember you said most) that haven't worked out of an existing paradigm? …..”.
Re: Are you a ‘PRACTITIONER’ here too? I guess not! You have missed even the meaning of the catchall term of Kuhn’s ‘paradigm’. Your question was ‘Can you imagine doing science without textbooks'? To it I replied, I can imagine that; what is so unimaginable about it? In fact, active researchers, most of the time, have no textbooks, no previous works, and literature to answer their specific questions or to guide their steps into unknown areas. That is why theirs is called ‘ORIGINAL RESEARCH’. And it’s true.
lightgigantic: “…Well if you picked up a book that gives a eurocentric opinion of the history of religion why don't you pick up a book of religious philosophy for the first time in your life - it would help you ascertain your previous claim that you are in fact "more intelligent than all the gurus in the world" if you had at least read one book on the topic……….”.
Re: And you want me to pick up, instead, an Asiatic-centric book to redeem myself! You want me to turn the clock back to the Year 1500 B.C and look inside the hyperactive imagination of your ancient gurus, in order to discover their reason for their ‘vigraha’ claim and have you convinced of my credible presentation! And you also misquoted me; I didn’t claim what you claimed I claimed. I said only, 'I’m, certainly cleverer and more enlightened and more modern than all your ancient gurus put together'! And this is a fact.
lightgigantic: “…If you mean persons who have applied the appropriate epistemology, yes….”.
Re: I mean ‘parrots’, believing ‘parrots’, who are simply parroting their ancient gurus! Their studies and their consensus amount to nothing, because their 'parroting' is not based on logic and principles of reason. And once again, epistemology is a branch of philosophy, not a standard method for seeking historical truths.
lightgigantic: “…Or do you mean your logic and reason as determined by your own limited experience?……….”.
Re: What makes you use your own ‘limited experience’ and the very ‘limited experience’ of your own ancient gurus to give the transcendent a ‘vigraha’? It’s wrong to tag a ‘vigraha’ to the transcendent. It was wrong then; it is wrong now; and it is wrong forever.
lightgigantic: “…Once again another wild statement devoid of enquiry - A person could say the same thing about electrons simply because they never went to school……..”.
Re: You mean a ‘person, who never went to school, would declare the non-existence of electrons'? If this is what you mean, then you get it wrong, way wrong. Persons, who never went to school, are most likely to believe almost everything. Keep in mind, belief comes first; disbelief comes later!
lightgigantic: “…You have to realise that the god and the living entity do not have the same ontology - of course unless you apply the appropriate epistemology you will never realise it……..”.
Re: You have to understand that people have made their God transcendent to protect Him from the ravages of laws of nature. And your ‘vigraha’ reverses this process and does no good for your Deity. Rules of logic are bad enough for Him; why do you want to add to them laws of nature? In addition, epistemology is a branch of philosophy, not a methodology.
lightgigantic: “…You think the words matter and perceptible are identical - this doesn't explain consciousness, which enables perception……”.
Re: I leave that to Prince James; the debate between both of you on this specific issue is already getting bulky! Thus, I say only that you can have either God’s ‘vigraha’ or God’s transcendence, but not both. By the way, does 'BLISS', in your view, have a ‘vigraha’?
lightgigantic: “…Consciousness has form - ever seen anything blissful without a form?……”.
Re: Seriously! Does ‘BLISS’ have a ‘vigraha’? Describe it! Have you ever seen ‘Consciousness’ looking gleefully at its ‘blissful form’ in a silver-coated mirror? Describe it briefly and precisely!
lightgigantic: “…see above……..”.
Re: I’m not kidding! Does ‘BLISS’ have a ‘vigraha’? Does LOVE have a ‘vigraha’? Does PLEASURE have a ‘vigraha’? Does PAIN have a ‘vigraha’? Does HAPPINESS have ‘vigraha’? Answer clearly and briefly, not just play around with words and phrases for fun! Otherwise, you'll most likely be branded as ‘gullible’, even though you’re quite clever, because of your blind trust in the authority of your ancient and somewhat unenlightened and naive gurus!
lightgigantic: “…Well I do actually have a philosophy too, but in the absence of any sort of progressive discussion with you I haven't really had the opportunity to express it…..”.
Re: It’s progressive, in what sense?
lightgigantic: “…I guess you will just have to inspire me to make the change”.
Re: That is what I’m trying to do. Can you imagine what you will be, if you put aside your ancient books for good? A beacon of ENLIGHTENMENT, I dare to prophesy!
Last edited:
Prince_James: “Just to be certain I am understanding the Limits application of this, please tell me if I am right: If a is any number, and b the non-zero limit divisor, the answer is infinity, negative or positive depending on the sign of a?……….”.
Re: The numerator ‘a’ must not be zero; and the sign of the result depends necessarily on the sign of ‘a’.
Prince_James: “…This is true, in so much as one must also add the leap from two to three dimensions…”.
Re: I agree, although I believe no great leap, here, is necessary.
Prince_James: “…Yes indeed……”.
Re: Yes, the relation between ‘HERE’ & ‘THERE’ is interesting!
Prince_James: “…Well yes, we all need to make our mistakes in order to eventually come to truth, although at the same time, if we do not eventually tackle the mistakes of others which spread their ideas, the truth can fade from view. It is so often the case that it is merely the viewpoint most loudly expressed that becomes the social idea. For instance, though determinism v. free-will is a huge issue in philosophy, with probably a slight advantage to determinism, the public is all ready convinced of free-will…….”.
Re: That is true. The crying baby gets the milk! In addition, tackling the mistakes of others is another royal road to proper philosophizing. As for determinism & free will, I just want to point out that the EFFECTS, in determinism, are pushed forwards from behind by natural CAUSES; while the EFFECTS, in free will, are pulled ahead by teleological CAUSES from the front. And so there should be no serious conflict between determinism and freedom.
Prince_James: “…Yes, yes….”.
Re: YES, ‘Lumiere_Gigantique’ has undoubtedly the 'stamina' of a MARATHON RUNNER!
Prince_James: “…Yes. It really is. Specifically as mathematics is generally a vigorously well supported system with centuries of contributions by our greatest minds. There may be one or two conceptual flaws that I'd point out are less fruitful than others to hold, but there is a degree of internal coherence…….”.
Re: I certainly I agree that a few mathematical concepts are flawed and less fruitful; but generally, mathematics is very coherent and rigorous.
AAF:
"Re: The numerator ‘a’ must not be zero; and the sign of the result depends necessarily on the sign of ‘a’. "
But otherwise my conception of it was?
"Re: I agree, although I believe no great leap, here, is necessary."
Well the idea of a plane excludes a third dimension. Assuming the third is a great leap, if only a different application. It also adds a great deal more commplication to the system, via an entirely different axis to calculate things o, as well as corresponding principles.
"Re: That is true. The crying baby gets the milk! In addition, tackling the mistakes of others is another royal road to proper philosophizing. As for determinism & free will, I just want to point out that the EFFECTS, in determinism, are pushed forwards from behind by natural CAUSES; while the EFFECTS, in free will, are pulled ahead by teleological CAUSES from the front. And so there should be no serious conflict between determinism and freedom."
Yes. People often mistake determinism as implying that we are somehow not ourselves and not capable of being free in the sense that all things stem from us when we decide things, but this is clearly absurd. A cause by our own self makes us even more free in the sense that we are not constrained by a randomness of will which would be entailed by a truly free one, that is, something which would be caused by nothing.
"Re: The numerator ‘a’ must not be zero; and the sign of the result depends necessarily on the sign of ‘a’. "
But otherwise my conception of it was?
"Re: I agree, although I believe no great leap, here, is necessary."
Well the idea of a plane excludes a third dimension. Assuming the third is a great leap, if only a different application. It also adds a great deal more commplication to the system, via an entirely different axis to calculate things o, as well as corresponding principles.
"Re: That is true. The crying baby gets the milk! In addition, tackling the mistakes of others is another royal road to proper philosophizing. As for determinism & free will, I just want to point out that the EFFECTS, in determinism, are pushed forwards from behind by natural CAUSES; while the EFFECTS, in free will, are pulled ahead by teleological CAUSES from the front. And so there should be no serious conflict between determinism and freedom."
Yes. People often mistake determinism as implying that we are somehow not ourselves and not capable of being free in the sense that all things stem from us when we decide things, but this is clearly absurd. A cause by our own self makes us even more free in the sense that we are not constrained by a randomness of will which would be entailed by a truly free one, that is, something which would be caused by nothing.
"***So the testing goes on until you understand that god is infallible – therefore the perfection of religion, surrender to god, is a gradual process, even for a practioner who accepts scripture – its not that one jumps on the liberated platform by declaring “I believe” "
A proof of infallibility is essentially impossible unless that being is so constructed for its ability to lie to be a logical contradiction.
****No more than the claim that everyone is mortal (in the absence of fully investigating the claim)
"***Understanding god requires a theoretical foundation – ie ascribing qualities to object is the primary means to discerning the object"
Ascribing or observing?
******When you say fire is hot is that ascribing or observing?
"****If I told you it was cold at the beach and it was cold at the beach how is it not true – even though you are in Belgium would you give a special ontological status to Belgium over China simply because China was not directly perceivable to you?"
If you told me it was cold at the beach and it was cold at the beach, what you said was clearly true, but I do not know it. I can believe you and be right, but I could just as well be wrong. My knowledge of "it is cold at the beach" is not justified and it is only accidentally a true belief.
*****Well that is the system of learning that goes on in 99% of all realm of education (including science)- bringing everything within one's direct perception is neither possible nor practical
I say the next coin toss will produce heads. It does. Did I know it in advance? Nope. A guess.
****That's the difference between a guess and a message from authoritative sources - an authoritative source actually knows but a guesser doesn't
"*****So in other words, No?"
Only practically. If I really cared enough to check it, I would have to check it or show immortality to be impossible for human beings.
***So what are some examples of things researchers have really "cared" about to investigate things properly? I would sasy that its not practical that we investigate things like that - and practically you see that what goes on in the name of information is acquired from authority, whether it is a scientist telling you about the dark side of the moon or some other claim
"****How is it possible when it is linearly impossible for us to do “full investigation” – What are the resources of “fulness” that we have access to to perform a “full investigation” – Actually we never do anything in the name of “full investigation”"
It is not linearly impossible for us to do a full investigation. I can open the fridge and find the milk. That being said, the full extent of empirical knowledge would seem impossible to know, but the philosophical truths are capable of being known in full and at all times by all rational creatures. They only take thought and mental effort to reach.
****So what are some exapmples of subtle claims in science compared to the milk example - I mean you could even have some far flung theory of physica that the milk will not be in th efridge after youclose the door because the material componants of the milk could randomly reform into anitmatter etc etc
But you are correct, most statements we do not verify to the fullest extent.
***Therefore we rely on authority - not just so called religious fanatics who have been brain washed
"*****So why say that consciousness is a material phrnomena if the chemical make up of consciousness is not apparent to you?"
Two reasons:
1. It shows all the signs of being a relational entity, I.E. it develops when certain organic compounds are arranged in such and such a way. It mayn't be as obvious as the relational aspects of a bridge or a house, though.
****But we don't see the actual substance of consciousness - just like there is a relational relationship between a shirt on a living person - they both appear to move although one is conscious and the other is not because they are essentially two different things
2. It is more reasonable to not add entities (transcendence) to a phenomenon that has no reason to suspect is outside the material in and of itself.
*****So in other words when the plug is pulled in the kitchen sink and a person is buried at sea it is practically the same phenomena because they are both essentially composed of the same material ingredients? In other words it also seems a bit strange to attribute consciousness to amaterial phenomena because we innately rebel against such a concept at every moment (we do not want to die)
"******But if purchasing power is proof of a gold coin it is irrelevant"
Counterfit coins. Better to bite into it, as the old-timey shoe-shiners would do. That is, investigate the manner.
***Just illustrates something about how the seller may have a faulty system of authority rather than the giver of the gold coin - an actual gold coin does not diminsih or transform in the absence of the seer to behold its potency, but if they have knowledg eof its application there is no difference in the fruit of results of an apparent "knower" and an "unknower"
"****Are seeing through anger, lust and envy equal in value to seeing without them?"
Equal if another paradigm is set up. Less if none is.
****In theparadigm of perceiving objective phenomena (ie truth) is what one wants to establish I think these vices are not helpful
That is, every paradigm is ultimately equal delusions until one excepts reality without such viewpoints and with an honest drive towards objective knowledge.
***Thats the point- lust anger etc indicates dishonesty
"*****The difference is that there are different values – like a person in ignorance has one type of seeing, a person in passion has another and a personin goodness a third – it is only on the platform of goodness that one can actually see things as they are"
How does the platform of goodness give us the real truth?
***Because one is no deeply dyed by ones subjective colours - for instance one scientist who wanted to advocate that men were more intelligent than woman chose a small female specimen and a large male specimen and crammed the male skull fullof lead and lightly topped up the female one to prove his claims
"****Actually during the submarine siege of Britain during WW2 this is what the british government did – it wasn’t smelly like stool of course,"
I am glad I was not alive then!
Really, I got to say that is pretty revolting.
***The point is that people did not perceive anything disgusting, but nonethless we are naturally adverse to eating such food products, even if they appear to have no revolting appearance - why? Because there is a natural gradation of values
"*****The pig illustrates how a living entity can take delight in ignorance –"
In ignorance or in his own preferences?
***Its prefernce is ignorance - therefore the living entity has acquired a pig's body to perceive a certain practice as pleasurable (ie they got down graded)
"****Well where is consciousness in matter? Seeing god innvolves also seeing matter but one does not ascribe superior value (ie consciousness) to it but rather sees it as th e property of god"
Consciousness is in matter as bridge is in wood. Relational. Seeing God as a conscious being must describe how God can be a consciousness divorced from a body, hold such things as thought, et cetera, et cetera. None of these things usually prove succesful even to a moderate extent.
***But why hold god to such an epistemology when we donot even properly exist in such a definition - for instance how the body is driven by consciousness is not established as a material phenomena
"***therefore religion without philosophy is as useless as science without a sense of the absolute"
I would agree with this statement.
***What absolutes do you perceive in science then? BTW I assume you are coming from a scientific angle - If I may ask what is your professional interest in science, if you have one ...
A proof of infallibility is essentially impossible unless that being is so constructed for its ability to lie to be a logical contradiction.
****No more than the claim that everyone is mortal (in the absence of fully investigating the claim)
"***Understanding god requires a theoretical foundation – ie ascribing qualities to object is the primary means to discerning the object"
Ascribing or observing?
******When you say fire is hot is that ascribing or observing?
"****If I told you it was cold at the beach and it was cold at the beach how is it not true – even though you are in Belgium would you give a special ontological status to Belgium over China simply because China was not directly perceivable to you?"
If you told me it was cold at the beach and it was cold at the beach, what you said was clearly true, but I do not know it. I can believe you and be right, but I could just as well be wrong. My knowledge of "it is cold at the beach" is not justified and it is only accidentally a true belief.
*****Well that is the system of learning that goes on in 99% of all realm of education (including science)- bringing everything within one's direct perception is neither possible nor practical
I say the next coin toss will produce heads. It does. Did I know it in advance? Nope. A guess.
****That's the difference between a guess and a message from authoritative sources - an authoritative source actually knows but a guesser doesn't
"*****So in other words, No?"
Only practically. If I really cared enough to check it, I would have to check it or show immortality to be impossible for human beings.
***So what are some examples of things researchers have really "cared" about to investigate things properly? I would sasy that its not practical that we investigate things like that - and practically you see that what goes on in the name of information is acquired from authority, whether it is a scientist telling you about the dark side of the moon or some other claim
"****How is it possible when it is linearly impossible for us to do “full investigation” – What are the resources of “fulness” that we have access to to perform a “full investigation” – Actually we never do anything in the name of “full investigation”"
It is not linearly impossible for us to do a full investigation. I can open the fridge and find the milk. That being said, the full extent of empirical knowledge would seem impossible to know, but the philosophical truths are capable of being known in full and at all times by all rational creatures. They only take thought and mental effort to reach.
****So what are some exapmples of subtle claims in science compared to the milk example - I mean you could even have some far flung theory of physica that the milk will not be in th efridge after youclose the door because the material componants of the milk could randomly reform into anitmatter etc etc
But you are correct, most statements we do not verify to the fullest extent.
***Therefore we rely on authority - not just so called religious fanatics who have been brain washed
"*****So why say that consciousness is a material phrnomena if the chemical make up of consciousness is not apparent to you?"
Two reasons:
1. It shows all the signs of being a relational entity, I.E. it develops when certain organic compounds are arranged in such and such a way. It mayn't be as obvious as the relational aspects of a bridge or a house, though.
****But we don't see the actual substance of consciousness - just like there is a relational relationship between a shirt on a living person - they both appear to move although one is conscious and the other is not because they are essentially two different things
2. It is more reasonable to not add entities (transcendence) to a phenomenon that has no reason to suspect is outside the material in and of itself.
*****So in other words when the plug is pulled in the kitchen sink and a person is buried at sea it is practically the same phenomena because they are both essentially composed of the same material ingredients? In other words it also seems a bit strange to attribute consciousness to amaterial phenomena because we innately rebel against such a concept at every moment (we do not want to die)
"******But if purchasing power is proof of a gold coin it is irrelevant"
Counterfit coins. Better to bite into it, as the old-timey shoe-shiners would do. That is, investigate the manner.
***Just illustrates something about how the seller may have a faulty system of authority rather than the giver of the gold coin - an actual gold coin does not diminsih or transform in the absence of the seer to behold its potency, but if they have knowledg eof its application there is no difference in the fruit of results of an apparent "knower" and an "unknower"
"****Are seeing through anger, lust and envy equal in value to seeing without them?"
Equal if another paradigm is set up. Less if none is.
****In theparadigm of perceiving objective phenomena (ie truth) is what one wants to establish I think these vices are not helpful
That is, every paradigm is ultimately equal delusions until one excepts reality without such viewpoints and with an honest drive towards objective knowledge.
***Thats the point- lust anger etc indicates dishonesty
"*****The difference is that there are different values – like a person in ignorance has one type of seeing, a person in passion has another and a personin goodness a third – it is only on the platform of goodness that one can actually see things as they are"
How does the platform of goodness give us the real truth?
***Because one is no deeply dyed by ones subjective colours - for instance one scientist who wanted to advocate that men were more intelligent than woman chose a small female specimen and a large male specimen and crammed the male skull fullof lead and lightly topped up the female one to prove his claims
"****Actually during the submarine siege of Britain during WW2 this is what the british government did – it wasn’t smelly like stool of course,"
I am glad I was not alive then!
Really, I got to say that is pretty revolting.
***The point is that people did not perceive anything disgusting, but nonethless we are naturally adverse to eating such food products, even if they appear to have no revolting appearance - why? Because there is a natural gradation of values
"*****The pig illustrates how a living entity can take delight in ignorance –"
In ignorance or in his own preferences?
***Its prefernce is ignorance - therefore the living entity has acquired a pig's body to perceive a certain practice as pleasurable (ie they got down graded)
"****Well where is consciousness in matter? Seeing god innvolves also seeing matter but one does not ascribe superior value (ie consciousness) to it but rather sees it as th e property of god"
Consciousness is in matter as bridge is in wood. Relational. Seeing God as a conscious being must describe how God can be a consciousness divorced from a body, hold such things as thought, et cetera, et cetera. None of these things usually prove succesful even to a moderate extent.
***But why hold god to such an epistemology when we donot even properly exist in such a definition - for instance how the body is driven by consciousness is not established as a material phenomena
"***therefore religion without philosophy is as useless as science without a sense of the absolute"
I would agree with this statement.
***What absolutes do you perceive in science then? BTW I assume you are coming from a scientific angle - If I may ask what is your professional interest in science, if you have one ...
lightgigantic: “So are you saying the only reason the president hasn't come to your place for dinner is because your standards are too high?………”.
Re: No, that is your ‘concoction’! I said only that I’m too busy disciplining you to invite any V.I.P in. The main reason, obviously, is that your religious irrationality is so deeply rooted; and eradicating it or making it under control is a full-time JOB!
lightgigantic: “…Well I guess we can also disregard people's minds and electrons since these too are beyond direct perception and must also be fictional characters .......”.
Re: Direct or indirect perception is not the issue here. What makes the existence of God impossible is the contradictory nature of every concept of Him. And because every entity whose concept is contradictory does not exist in the real sense, God whose concept is very contradictory can never exist in reality. I’m very sure that you see the full truth of this as clear as you see the SUN at a summer’s noon. But, and this very important, you are completely unprepared psychologically and mentally for life without belief in this non-existent Entity called ‘God’. For this reason, you’re totally unable to give this absurd belief up.
lightgigantic: “…But more to the point, you have to establish what people are perceiving in the name of god to prove it is false - for instance if I see a rope and call it a snake you can pick up the rope and reveal it for what it is. ………”.
Re: Every concept of God under the sun is contradictory and absurd, including your own notion of Him. So you can’t just suppose without any basis that some logically consistent concept of God is still to be discovered. People have been wrestling with this daunting problem for millennia and literally have left no stone unturned to save their Deities from the ravages of logic and reason.
lightgigantic: “…What objective phenomena are people in all cultures and all times perceiving that enables them to come up with the notion of god or something godlike, despite vast barriers of communication and geography?…………”.
Re: It is not difficult for them to come up with such an idea. Verifying it logically is another matter. The most frequent route for people of different cultures to invent the notion of a higher being is the social hierarchy. On the top of that hierarchy is usually, and particularly in ancient times, a sovereign (i.e. a king, emperor, or chieftain). From this to the stumbling upon the notion of God, they need only to use a bit of imagination. Social hierarchies, throughout history, are similar; and so are the various concepts of God. They are also beside this many other ways of arriving at the idea of God. I won’t name them, since for certain you know most of them, and since the above example is sufficient for illustrating the point under discussion. Very briefly, the invention of the idea of God is not difficult; verifying it and validating it logically as consistent and free of contradictions is absolutely impossible. And that is your problem, not mine!
lightgigantic: “…Wouldn't you expect a function of imagination divorced from objective perception to be isolated or beyond being unified as a category (like we have the term "religion")………..”.
Re: No! That expectation is unjustified. Ancient people might be primitive and somewhat barbaric, but certainly they were not unimaginative or mentally retarded. They were more than able to invent the idea of God and a whole host of other similar ideas. Historians and archaeologists have no trouble in tracing the ancient origins of the idea of God and similar mythological entities. And so the invention of God is possible; proving that He exists is absolutely impossible. That is because every notion of God is contradictory. And since every entity whose notion is contradictory does not exist, God as an actual entity can’t exist no matter how strong your belief in Him. He is just can’t exist. It's clear and simple!
lightgigantic: “…I don't think you have done an exhaustive study of this, nor do I think you are likely to…..”.
Re: I’m afraid you’re misinformed! Many comprehensive studies have been done about the impossible existence of God. And the idea of God is not terribly complicated anyway. It has no chance to be complicated; since it’s contradictory and unable to get off the ground in the first place.
lightgigantic: “…but I think it should be obvious that just because you do not see something doesn't mean much, particularly if you don't apply the appropriate epistemology to approach the ontology”.
Re: You’ve misstated the problem! The existence of God is impossible, not because He cannot be seen, but because His concept is contradictory and absurd. And since, epistemologically & ontologically & logically, every entity whose concept is contradictory cannot exist, God can never ever exist as a real entiy.
Last edited:
lightgigantic:
"****No more than the claim that everyone is mortal (in the absence of fully investigating the claim)"
It is a bit different to speak of all humans being mortal and God being infallible. We have knowledge of mortal humans - it is at least feasible - but no being we know of is infallible. That is to say, infallibility is not even known relatively to us, mortality most certainly is.
"******When you say fire is hot is that ascribing or observing?"
Observing. But are you claiming to experience God as one might experience fire?
"*****Well that is the system of learning that goes on in 99% of all realm of education (including science)- bringing everything within one's direct perception is neither possible nor practical"
It is practically necessary, yes. I do not deny the pragmatic aspects of this. But we never know something until we can experience it ourselves if it is a non-logical truth.
"****That's the difference between a guess and a message from authoritative sources - an authoritative source actually knows but a guesser doesn't"
An authority certainly knows if they have themselves seen it, but my ignorance on the subject is the same as if it was a coin toss. That is to say, the authority may have full justification for claiming something, but I myself do not, even when listening to such authority. Moreover, it stands to reason that the authority cannot be listened to till one is certain of his credentials with epistemological certainy of even accepting him as an authority.
"***So what are some examples of things researchers have really "cared" about to investigate things properly? I would sasy that its not practical that we investigate things like that - and practically you see that what goes on in the name of information is acquired from authority, whether it is a scientist telling you about the dark side of the moon or some other claim"
Many things. Engineering, art, writing, language, biology...All of these things have been investigated and are still being investigated for a full scope of knowledge.
Practically y ou are correct, it is worthless to investigate everything individually. No one is to be expected to know everything there is about any of those things, but for experts in the field, who must achieve that perfection of knowledge as much as possible.
"****So what are some exapmples of subtle claims in science compared to the milk example - I mean you could even have some far flung theory of physica that the milk will not be in th efridge after youclose the door because the material componants of the milk could randomly reform into anitmatter etc etc "
You could have that theory, but you must have some reason to suggest that theory in science, based on observation and various other things.
"***Therefore we rely on authority - not just so called religious fanatics who have been brain washed"
For practical matters, yes. But the difference in authority is that the authority of scientists, artists, et cetera, are based on empirical observation, skill, and other such things. The religious do not have such a foundation. Few, if any, of the claims of religion can be verified empirically, and generally there is a great lack of philosophic truth in religion, although some get closer to others.
"****But we don't see the actual substance of consciousness - just like there is a relational relationship between a shirt on a living person - they both appear to move although one is conscious and the other is not because they are essentially two different things"
We certainly do not see consciousnes,s you are correct. HOwever, we see our own, we can infer others (and prove that they are conscious). And yes, clearly, there is a difference betwixt non-conscious and conscious things, hence the "alive" and "dead or inanimate" classification.
"*****So in other words when the plug is pulled in the kitchen sink and a person is buried at sea it is practically the same phenomena because they are both essentially composed of the same material ingredients? In other words it also seems a bit strange to attribute consciousness to amaterial phenomena because we innately rebel against such a concept at every moment (we do not want to die)"
Ultimately, yes, it is only a material transmission. However, an important relation - making a conscious entity - is lost at death, which is not found in water going down a sink.
Similarly, we do not want to die as it means the ending of our consciousness. This does not mean we do not have a material foundation for our consciousness, only that we do not want it to cease, as it would mean we no longer existed, and thus could not persist in our various things we hold as important.
"***Just illustrates something about how the seller may have a faulty system of authority rather than the giver of the gold coin - an actual gold coin does not diminsih or transform in the absence of the seer to behold its potency, but if they have knowledg eof its application there is no difference in the fruit of results of an apparent "knower" and an "unknower""
On the contrary, if there is no way to verify that what one has is indeed a gold coin, it's value is indeed diminished. It becomes that which is unknown. it could be right, could be wrong. Any authority beyond the ken of humanity to rigorously prove it is true, is thus worthless, as we cannot be sure what it is is good. Again, almost any system can make results, but it does not mean that outside the system this is so. It would be folly to afford religious authority to chess just because it is internally consistant.
"****In theparadigm of perceiving objective phenomena (ie truth) is what one wants to establish I think these vices are not helpful"
I agree.
"***Thats the point- lust anger etc indicates dishonesty"
I agree. But so does religion, which colours the world before perception. It is another paradigm.
If religion may be better than lust, it is only a scale of paradigm evils, just as we can say that thievery is less a crime than murder, but both are still a crime.
"***Because one is no deeply dyed by ones subjective colours - for instance one scientist who wanted to advocate that men were more intelligent than woman chose a small female specimen and a large male specimen and crammed the male skull fullof lead and lightly topped up the female one to prove his claims"
So you relate goodness to objectivity? If so, I will agree.
"***The point is that people did not perceive anything disgusting, but nonethless we are naturally adverse to eating such food products, even if they appear to have no revolting appearance - why? Because there is a natural gradation of values"
Well I rather instead focus on the fact that it comes from something which we declare disgusting, namely, feces. This is the source, not a "natural gradation of values", but our disgust of the unpleasantness of feces. Some people do not have this, though. In fact, some people are sexually aroused by such. Let's not get into that, though.
"***Its prefernce is ignorance - therefore the living entity has acquired a pig's body to perceive a certain practice as pleasurable (ie they got down graded)"
How is it ignorant to not mind human-feces derived butter? How is it "innately downgraded" by it? It seems a preference. I cannot rightfully claim it is wrong to eat such butter.
"***But why hold god to such an epistemology when we donot even properly exist in such a definition - for instance how the body is driven by consciousness is not established as a material phenomena"
That has yet to be proven.
"***What absolutes do you perceive in science then? BTW I assume you are coming from a scientific angle - If I may ask what is your professional interest in science, if you have one ... "
My professional interest? I am not a professional scientist. I am a professional philosopher (I am currently seeking a doctorate in philosophy to employ myself full-time as a professor of such). I am an amateur scientist, though, and enthusiast, and have some scientific background and own some instruments, with which I often do small scale chemistry and physics experiments for fun. I also keep abreast of scientific information and understand and incorporate such ideas and theories into my own worldview.
But as to the absolute in science: Science can only be built upon metaphysical premises, such as the validity of sensory knowledge, the objectivity of experience, et cetera, et cetera. That is to say, it needs objective philosophy to support it before it can do something, thus its sense of the absolute is related to the absolute principles which philosophy offers. Moreover, it has an absolute foundation for knowledge in the empirical realm, which is one of two broader categories of truth (the other being the mental/logical/philosophical). Without either of these thing, science would be worthless. In the first cas it would have no foundations whatsoever and one could deny any of its claims, whereas in the second case it would not be the means whereby knowledge of the empirical world could be found, hence, useless.
"****No more than the claim that everyone is mortal (in the absence of fully investigating the claim)"
It is a bit different to speak of all humans being mortal and God being infallible. We have knowledge of mortal humans - it is at least feasible - but no being we know of is infallible. That is to say, infallibility is not even known relatively to us, mortality most certainly is.
"******When you say fire is hot is that ascribing or observing?"
Observing. But are you claiming to experience God as one might experience fire?
"*****Well that is the system of learning that goes on in 99% of all realm of education (including science)- bringing everything within one's direct perception is neither possible nor practical"
It is practically necessary, yes. I do not deny the pragmatic aspects of this. But we never know something until we can experience it ourselves if it is a non-logical truth.
"****That's the difference between a guess and a message from authoritative sources - an authoritative source actually knows but a guesser doesn't"
An authority certainly knows if they have themselves seen it, but my ignorance on the subject is the same as if it was a coin toss. That is to say, the authority may have full justification for claiming something, but I myself do not, even when listening to such authority. Moreover, it stands to reason that the authority cannot be listened to till one is certain of his credentials with epistemological certainy of even accepting him as an authority.
"***So what are some examples of things researchers have really "cared" about to investigate things properly? I would sasy that its not practical that we investigate things like that - and practically you see that what goes on in the name of information is acquired from authority, whether it is a scientist telling you about the dark side of the moon or some other claim"
Many things. Engineering, art, writing, language, biology...All of these things have been investigated and are still being investigated for a full scope of knowledge.
Practically y ou are correct, it is worthless to investigate everything individually. No one is to be expected to know everything there is about any of those things, but for experts in the field, who must achieve that perfection of knowledge as much as possible.
"****So what are some exapmples of subtle claims in science compared to the milk example - I mean you could even have some far flung theory of physica that the milk will not be in th efridge after youclose the door because the material componants of the milk could randomly reform into anitmatter etc etc "
You could have that theory, but you must have some reason to suggest that theory in science, based on observation and various other things.
"***Therefore we rely on authority - not just so called religious fanatics who have been brain washed"
For practical matters, yes. But the difference in authority is that the authority of scientists, artists, et cetera, are based on empirical observation, skill, and other such things. The religious do not have such a foundation. Few, if any, of the claims of religion can be verified empirically, and generally there is a great lack of philosophic truth in religion, although some get closer to others.
"****But we don't see the actual substance of consciousness - just like there is a relational relationship between a shirt on a living person - they both appear to move although one is conscious and the other is not because they are essentially two different things"
We certainly do not see consciousnes,s you are correct. HOwever, we see our own, we can infer others (and prove that they are conscious). And yes, clearly, there is a difference betwixt non-conscious and conscious things, hence the "alive" and "dead or inanimate" classification.
"*****So in other words when the plug is pulled in the kitchen sink and a person is buried at sea it is practically the same phenomena because they are both essentially composed of the same material ingredients? In other words it also seems a bit strange to attribute consciousness to amaterial phenomena because we innately rebel against such a concept at every moment (we do not want to die)"
Ultimately, yes, it is only a material transmission. However, an important relation - making a conscious entity - is lost at death, which is not found in water going down a sink.
Similarly, we do not want to die as it means the ending of our consciousness. This does not mean we do not have a material foundation for our consciousness, only that we do not want it to cease, as it would mean we no longer existed, and thus could not persist in our various things we hold as important.
"***Just illustrates something about how the seller may have a faulty system of authority rather than the giver of the gold coin - an actual gold coin does not diminsih or transform in the absence of the seer to behold its potency, but if they have knowledg eof its application there is no difference in the fruit of results of an apparent "knower" and an "unknower""
On the contrary, if there is no way to verify that what one has is indeed a gold coin, it's value is indeed diminished. It becomes that which is unknown. it could be right, could be wrong. Any authority beyond the ken of humanity to rigorously prove it is true, is thus worthless, as we cannot be sure what it is is good. Again, almost any system can make results, but it does not mean that outside the system this is so. It would be folly to afford religious authority to chess just because it is internally consistant.
"****In theparadigm of perceiving objective phenomena (ie truth) is what one wants to establish I think these vices are not helpful"
I agree.
"***Thats the point- lust anger etc indicates dishonesty"
I agree. But so does religion, which colours the world before perception. It is another paradigm.
If religion may be better than lust, it is only a scale of paradigm evils, just as we can say that thievery is less a crime than murder, but both are still a crime.
"***Because one is no deeply dyed by ones subjective colours - for instance one scientist who wanted to advocate that men were more intelligent than woman chose a small female specimen and a large male specimen and crammed the male skull fullof lead and lightly topped up the female one to prove his claims"
So you relate goodness to objectivity? If so, I will agree.
"***The point is that people did not perceive anything disgusting, but nonethless we are naturally adverse to eating such food products, even if they appear to have no revolting appearance - why? Because there is a natural gradation of values"
Well I rather instead focus on the fact that it comes from something which we declare disgusting, namely, feces. This is the source, not a "natural gradation of values", but our disgust of the unpleasantness of feces. Some people do not have this, though. In fact, some people are sexually aroused by such. Let's not get into that, though.
"***Its prefernce is ignorance - therefore the living entity has acquired a pig's body to perceive a certain practice as pleasurable (ie they got down graded)"
How is it ignorant to not mind human-feces derived butter? How is it "innately downgraded" by it? It seems a preference. I cannot rightfully claim it is wrong to eat such butter.
"***But why hold god to such an epistemology when we donot even properly exist in such a definition - for instance how the body is driven by consciousness is not established as a material phenomena"
That has yet to be proven.
"***What absolutes do you perceive in science then? BTW I assume you are coming from a scientific angle - If I may ask what is your professional interest in science, if you have one ... "
My professional interest? I am not a professional scientist. I am a professional philosopher (I am currently seeking a doctorate in philosophy to employ myself full-time as a professor of such). I am an amateur scientist, though, and enthusiast, and have some scientific background and own some instruments, with which I often do small scale chemistry and physics experiments for fun. I also keep abreast of scientific information and understand and incorporate such ideas and theories into my own worldview.
But as to the absolute in science: Science can only be built upon metaphysical premises, such as the validity of sensory knowledge, the objectivity of experience, et cetera, et cetera. That is to say, it needs objective philosophy to support it before it can do something, thus its sense of the absolute is related to the absolute principles which philosophy offers. Moreover, it has an absolute foundation for knowledge in the empirical realm, which is one of two broader categories of truth (the other being the mental/logical/philosophical). Without either of these thing, science would be worthless. In the first cas it would have no foundations whatsoever and one could deny any of its claims, whereas in the second case it would not be the means whereby knowledge of the empirical world could be found, hence, useless.
"*******On what basis do you determine the capacity of the material cosmos and also the capacity of god?"
Arguments from necessity. I believe I have given you mine, but here it is if I did not.
Consider this: Ultimately, you can either have something or you can have nothing. That is, the two categories of reality are existence and non-existence. Then, were existence to come to an end, we'd by necessity have to replace it with non-existence. Yet non-existence cannot exist - were it to exist, it would cease to be non-existence - thus existence can only have existence beyond it and thus must it exist ad infinitum.
****Plato used the same basis to declare that there must be a transcendental realm - in other words you can view virtually everything in this world as a temporary phenomena, even our own material conception of self, so he postulated that this world was a shadow or reflection of a more substantial or real existence.
Another argument: Existence and non-existence are absolutely opposite to one another and thus can one take the propeties of either, negate them, and have the other. In nothingness there is no-space, thus in existence there must be space, but not just space with limits, but infinite space, for only such absolute space could be the opposite of absolute no-space.
***This is a faulty definition - for instance an imagined snake and a real snake have something in common - they are not binary opposites, and of course neither are they the same.
"*****So therefore it is given that one can understand enough about god to qualify for liberation (ie one can know enough about him to be socialised around his service) but that it is impossible to know him in full. There is a name of god, adhoksaja, which means beyond the purview of the senses – this is due to his unlimited potencies "
We could not empirically view the totality of God, no. That being said, it is not necessary. If God is a perfect, necessary thing, then he can be known only through logical/philosophical reasoning.
****By logic one can know enough about god to apply the process of perceiving him - logic doesn't lead to direct perception - just like you can apply logic to the idea that there must be a civil manager in society (a king/president etc) because the public utilities are functioning etc etc - from that point one could apply a process to develop a personal relationship with the king once, or at the very least endeavour to collect information about his identity so one could apply ythe relevant process - in other words developing a relationship with a king doesn't even start as long as one is not sure whether the entity even exists or not
"******Why can’t the absolute truth be found in god? "
That depends on if God is the absolute truth. Which depends strongly on what God is.
****In science they end their studies with god - in religion they begin with god - that is the only difference
"*****No – not everything is up for our scrutiny and verification – because we have a limited mind and body – there are some tricks that you cannot even teach a new dog (such as how to reverse park a semi trailer only using the rear vision mirrors)"
Then we can never trust God on these things, because we have no way of doing it ourselves. However, that also seems quite impossible that we should not be able to know everything about a necessary being, when all that which is necessary can be discerned.
**Assuming of course that our mind and intelligence is an unlimited phenomena
"*****Yes – all potential energy exists in god"
Okay. So then God never creates, only uses potential?
***Not sure how that requires a seperate definition from creation ...
"******And if your logic owes its existence to limited experience and knowledge?"
Experience would only count so much as we are dealing with empirical facts, I.E. that horses are alive, that the sky is blue, that rocks have mass. Logic, on the other hand, is independent from experience in the sense that one can deal with logic purely divorced from reality to test its essential and absolute validity. For instance, it is impossible to claim that the Law of Identity and Non-Contradiciton do not work, on the foundation that if they did not, they would prove themselves to actually be. That is, just like the "there are no absolute truths" demonstrates its fallacy and the truthfulness of "there are absolute truths".
****So some logic can lead to god and some logic cannot - just like some logic can lead to no distinction between a king and a prisioner and a more advanced logic does lead to a distinction.
If I were to adopt religious terminology, I would say that logic is the divine aspect of human cognition, empirical evaluation the mortal.
****Logic can lead to the conviction that god exists - it arises from perceiving the symptoms of an orderly universe
"****It is not degrading – like he never becomes a stool eating pig like a conditioned living entity – his case is just of increasing whereas we have the opportunity for fluctuation according to our attitude to free will – that’s the difference between our free will and gods free will"
Increasing awareness implies degradation of all former states. Just as Newton is not held in as high esteem because we have found that Einstein had some things to say which Newton did not and which Newton was shown to be wrong upon, so too would God if he "increased in his awareness" would degrading his former states.
****God is never wrong - unlike newton he doesn't make mistakes - increase doesn't necessarily imply rectifying error in all circumstances - like if you make 100$ and the next day make $1000 its not that the $100 was wrong, it was simply less
"*****If there are eternal elements that means they must not degrade, otherwise they would be temporal. Whether it is true to equate form with matter, or whether spiritual things also have form (form that doesn’t degrade) is precisely the question."
Presumably, all which has form must have a body, no? And is not body a material thing?
****But you can not perceive whether spiritual bodies have form if you do not perceive the spiritual - just like a deep water fish has no experience of the medium of air, but that doesn't mean there is no such things as birds - in other words unless one has applied the appropriate epistemology to discern spiritual things that question cannot be answered by them.
Moreover, we have not shown the necessary eternity of transcendent things. I think we're still discussing this below.
***So I guess the first point is to establish whether there are eternal things in creation - and if those eternal things have no form, how did form (the material variety) develop from something that has no form?
"*******Thoughts are symptoms of a transcendental source – whether the thoughts are material or transcendental depends on the consciousness (conditioned or unconditioned)"
Concerning their content or their substance? Similarly, would you say that God has had multiple thoughts, perhaps even an infinite number of them?
****Whats is the substance of thought - are you implying the chemical quality of a "thought" (science cannot establish that thoughts are chemical to begin with) - how is this distinct from content?
"*****When you pull a plug from the fan it spins a few moments even though there is no electricity"
Some reflex actions can occur even after the creature is long dead. Reflex actions in bugs are often found to do that.
****The fan example still holds up since the dead insect cannot kick its legs forever - or alternatively The body is a machine and it requires consciousness to move - in this circumstance it would be the consciousness of the person prodding the dead insect that causes it to move
"*****relational to consciousness because a dead person cannot move, at least no where near to the degree that he can be mistaken for a living one"
No, relational to material things which produce consciousness, I.E. organic bodies.
****What exactly are the material things that produce consciousness - if a person with a leather glove hands you $100 did the glove give you $100 or the person?
"*****eternity is a quality of something transcendental, just like heat is a quality of fire"
Consciousness produces thoughts which have all the "transcendent qualities" of consciousness, do they not? Yet they are ephemeral. A thought comes and goes.
****Just like heat comes and goes from a fire - the source is constant but the symptoms may or may not be constant - so just as heat, whether greater or lesser is always a constant of fire, thoughts are always constantly happening as long as one is consciousness - just try and stop thinking for a moment to see if this statement is false
"***** The mind and body are recconciable – there is a distinction between the mind and the soul, namely a distinction of eternity"
In that the soul is eternal whereas the mind is temporary and based on individuated life?
***Yes
"*****Then tell what is the truth about consciousness – truth is necessary for existence but if you have only relative truths you have not approached th e superior onotology of existence"
The truth about consciousnesses is that all signs point to it being a relational entity brought about by the conditions of life.
*** Then why if those conditions are materially reproduced without consciousness, consciousness does not take place?
If - and it is a big if - consciousness can be shared over many individual lifetimes, we can postulate that this relation can engrain itself somehow onto things - perhaps electromagnetism, if some phenomena around purported ghosts are any indication - and thus keep a semblance of continuum betwixt two distinct lifeforms which nonetheless share that same consciousness-spark.
****A ghost is a living entity without a body - in other words just a mind and intelligence - they don't have a material body to fulfill their desires so most ghosts are crazy and mostly "possess" persons (take over a person's mind intelligence, albeit temporarily) so they can fulfill a few desires - persons who commit suicide usually receive a ghosts body as sinful reaction for discarding their corporeal existence whimsically
"*****Is this a change in stance form the previous statement?"
No. I never claimed that wills were present outside of conscious beings.
*****So if one can perceive a will in the universe what does that indicate? The fact that the universe operates in certain ways and not in others (like the sun always appears in the east etc) indicates a will.
"****God is not dependant on laws, just as the sun is not dependant on the sunshine"
Assuredly God is dependent on laws, or have you found a way to refute how God must be subject to the law of result in order to produce results?
*****Result is dependant on god just as sunshine is dependant on the sun - just like in a household where one person is earning all the money, if anyone buys a nything they buy it with his money
"*****This is why god is both eternal and the cause of all causes and we are merely eternal – an eternal fire produces eternal heat
."
I am not exactly sure what you are postulating. Are you now agreeing that God and the law of result are one? Or that God can make causes without effects (an absurd notion)?
***God always exists and we have always existed - just like as long as a fire exists heat always exists - there is no chronological difference between the "appearance" of the fire and heat - the difference is that heat is caused by the fire - it is due to the fire's existence that the heat is in existence - without the fire there is no question of heat
"***And that something is god, at the very least you can not define the non-degrading elements of matter that would make it eternal"
The non-degrading elements of existence are threefold: Space (energy/matter as well as dimension),
****Black hole researchers may disagree
time (self explanatory),
****consider the difference between having a 1 hour nap and having your hand held on a hot plate for 1 hour - both occurred in the same period but one is perceived to be excrutiating long and the other a mere moment - in other words the conscious perception of time is in "moments", and such varities of moments are not all equal even if of equal time slots
and relation (the property which allows for bridge and house not to be found in the wood which they are created by).
****Isn't relation a quality of consciousness, since it is consciousness which dtermines that bridge be found in a piece of wood
I call the above the three fundamentals and construe them as having a triune nature which disallows them to exist apart from one another and that all can be explained by reference to a combination of them. If you would like further explanations and elaborations on any of the above, do tell me.
****As above
But yes, I actually agree with you that we might call existence God. Where we disagree is whether God/existence have a quality called "transcendence" and various other points.
***a further point is the discussion of the variety of consciousness
Arguments from necessity. I believe I have given you mine, but here it is if I did not.
Consider this: Ultimately, you can either have something or you can have nothing. That is, the two categories of reality are existence and non-existence. Then, were existence to come to an end, we'd by necessity have to replace it with non-existence. Yet non-existence cannot exist - were it to exist, it would cease to be non-existence - thus existence can only have existence beyond it and thus must it exist ad infinitum.
****Plato used the same basis to declare that there must be a transcendental realm - in other words you can view virtually everything in this world as a temporary phenomena, even our own material conception of self, so he postulated that this world was a shadow or reflection of a more substantial or real existence.
Another argument: Existence and non-existence are absolutely opposite to one another and thus can one take the propeties of either, negate them, and have the other. In nothingness there is no-space, thus in existence there must be space, but not just space with limits, but infinite space, for only such absolute space could be the opposite of absolute no-space.
***This is a faulty definition - for instance an imagined snake and a real snake have something in common - they are not binary opposites, and of course neither are they the same.
"*****So therefore it is given that one can understand enough about god to qualify for liberation (ie one can know enough about him to be socialised around his service) but that it is impossible to know him in full. There is a name of god, adhoksaja, which means beyond the purview of the senses – this is due to his unlimited potencies "
We could not empirically view the totality of God, no. That being said, it is not necessary. If God is a perfect, necessary thing, then he can be known only through logical/philosophical reasoning.
****By logic one can know enough about god to apply the process of perceiving him - logic doesn't lead to direct perception - just like you can apply logic to the idea that there must be a civil manager in society (a king/president etc) because the public utilities are functioning etc etc - from that point one could apply a process to develop a personal relationship with the king once, or at the very least endeavour to collect information about his identity so one could apply ythe relevant process - in other words developing a relationship with a king doesn't even start as long as one is not sure whether the entity even exists or not
"******Why can’t the absolute truth be found in god? "
That depends on if God is the absolute truth. Which depends strongly on what God is.
****In science they end their studies with god - in religion they begin with god - that is the only difference
"*****No – not everything is up for our scrutiny and verification – because we have a limited mind and body – there are some tricks that you cannot even teach a new dog (such as how to reverse park a semi trailer only using the rear vision mirrors)"
Then we can never trust God on these things, because we have no way of doing it ourselves. However, that also seems quite impossible that we should not be able to know everything about a necessary being, when all that which is necessary can be discerned.
**Assuming of course that our mind and intelligence is an unlimited phenomena
"*****Yes – all potential energy exists in god"
Okay. So then God never creates, only uses potential?
***Not sure how that requires a seperate definition from creation ...
"******And if your logic owes its existence to limited experience and knowledge?"
Experience would only count so much as we are dealing with empirical facts, I.E. that horses are alive, that the sky is blue, that rocks have mass. Logic, on the other hand, is independent from experience in the sense that one can deal with logic purely divorced from reality to test its essential and absolute validity. For instance, it is impossible to claim that the Law of Identity and Non-Contradiciton do not work, on the foundation that if they did not, they would prove themselves to actually be. That is, just like the "there are no absolute truths" demonstrates its fallacy and the truthfulness of "there are absolute truths".
****So some logic can lead to god and some logic cannot - just like some logic can lead to no distinction between a king and a prisioner and a more advanced logic does lead to a distinction.
If I were to adopt religious terminology, I would say that logic is the divine aspect of human cognition, empirical evaluation the mortal.
****Logic can lead to the conviction that god exists - it arises from perceiving the symptoms of an orderly universe
"****It is not degrading – like he never becomes a stool eating pig like a conditioned living entity – his case is just of increasing whereas we have the opportunity for fluctuation according to our attitude to free will – that’s the difference between our free will and gods free will"
Increasing awareness implies degradation of all former states. Just as Newton is not held in as high esteem because we have found that Einstein had some things to say which Newton did not and which Newton was shown to be wrong upon, so too would God if he "increased in his awareness" would degrading his former states.
****God is never wrong - unlike newton he doesn't make mistakes - increase doesn't necessarily imply rectifying error in all circumstances - like if you make 100$ and the next day make $1000 its not that the $100 was wrong, it was simply less
"*****If there are eternal elements that means they must not degrade, otherwise they would be temporal. Whether it is true to equate form with matter, or whether spiritual things also have form (form that doesn’t degrade) is precisely the question."
Presumably, all which has form must have a body, no? And is not body a material thing?
****But you can not perceive whether spiritual bodies have form if you do not perceive the spiritual - just like a deep water fish has no experience of the medium of air, but that doesn't mean there is no such things as birds - in other words unless one has applied the appropriate epistemology to discern spiritual things that question cannot be answered by them.
Moreover, we have not shown the necessary eternity of transcendent things. I think we're still discussing this below.
***So I guess the first point is to establish whether there are eternal things in creation - and if those eternal things have no form, how did form (the material variety) develop from something that has no form?
"*******Thoughts are symptoms of a transcendental source – whether the thoughts are material or transcendental depends on the consciousness (conditioned or unconditioned)"
Concerning their content or their substance? Similarly, would you say that God has had multiple thoughts, perhaps even an infinite number of them?
****Whats is the substance of thought - are you implying the chemical quality of a "thought" (science cannot establish that thoughts are chemical to begin with) - how is this distinct from content?
"*****When you pull a plug from the fan it spins a few moments even though there is no electricity"
Some reflex actions can occur even after the creature is long dead. Reflex actions in bugs are often found to do that.
****The fan example still holds up since the dead insect cannot kick its legs forever - or alternatively The body is a machine and it requires consciousness to move - in this circumstance it would be the consciousness of the person prodding the dead insect that causes it to move
"*****relational to consciousness because a dead person cannot move, at least no where near to the degree that he can be mistaken for a living one"
No, relational to material things which produce consciousness, I.E. organic bodies.
****What exactly are the material things that produce consciousness - if a person with a leather glove hands you $100 did the glove give you $100 or the person?
"*****eternity is a quality of something transcendental, just like heat is a quality of fire"
Consciousness produces thoughts which have all the "transcendent qualities" of consciousness, do they not? Yet they are ephemeral. A thought comes and goes.
****Just like heat comes and goes from a fire - the source is constant but the symptoms may or may not be constant - so just as heat, whether greater or lesser is always a constant of fire, thoughts are always constantly happening as long as one is consciousness - just try and stop thinking for a moment to see if this statement is false
"***** The mind and body are recconciable – there is a distinction between the mind and the soul, namely a distinction of eternity"
In that the soul is eternal whereas the mind is temporary and based on individuated life?
***Yes
"*****Then tell what is the truth about consciousness – truth is necessary for existence but if you have only relative truths you have not approached th e superior onotology of existence"
The truth about consciousnesses is that all signs point to it being a relational entity brought about by the conditions of life.
*** Then why if those conditions are materially reproduced without consciousness, consciousness does not take place?
If - and it is a big if - consciousness can be shared over many individual lifetimes, we can postulate that this relation can engrain itself somehow onto things - perhaps electromagnetism, if some phenomena around purported ghosts are any indication - and thus keep a semblance of continuum betwixt two distinct lifeforms which nonetheless share that same consciousness-spark.
****A ghost is a living entity without a body - in other words just a mind and intelligence - they don't have a material body to fulfill their desires so most ghosts are crazy and mostly "possess" persons (take over a person's mind intelligence, albeit temporarily) so they can fulfill a few desires - persons who commit suicide usually receive a ghosts body as sinful reaction for discarding their corporeal existence whimsically
"*****Is this a change in stance form the previous statement?"
No. I never claimed that wills were present outside of conscious beings.
*****So if one can perceive a will in the universe what does that indicate? The fact that the universe operates in certain ways and not in others (like the sun always appears in the east etc) indicates a will.
"****God is not dependant on laws, just as the sun is not dependant on the sunshine"
Assuredly God is dependent on laws, or have you found a way to refute how God must be subject to the law of result in order to produce results?
*****Result is dependant on god just as sunshine is dependant on the sun - just like in a household where one person is earning all the money, if anyone buys a nything they buy it with his money
"*****This is why god is both eternal and the cause of all causes and we are merely eternal – an eternal fire produces eternal heat
."
I am not exactly sure what you are postulating. Are you now agreeing that God and the law of result are one? Or that God can make causes without effects (an absurd notion)?
***God always exists and we have always existed - just like as long as a fire exists heat always exists - there is no chronological difference between the "appearance" of the fire and heat - the difference is that heat is caused by the fire - it is due to the fire's existence that the heat is in existence - without the fire there is no question of heat
"***And that something is god, at the very least you can not define the non-degrading elements of matter that would make it eternal"
The non-degrading elements of existence are threefold: Space (energy/matter as well as dimension),
****Black hole researchers may disagree
time (self explanatory),
****consider the difference between having a 1 hour nap and having your hand held on a hot plate for 1 hour - both occurred in the same period but one is perceived to be excrutiating long and the other a mere moment - in other words the conscious perception of time is in "moments", and such varities of moments are not all equal even if of equal time slots
and relation (the property which allows for bridge and house not to be found in the wood which they are created by).
****Isn't relation a quality of consciousness, since it is consciousness which dtermines that bridge be found in a piece of wood
I call the above the three fundamentals and construe them as having a triune nature which disallows them to exist apart from one another and that all can be explained by reference to a combination of them. If you would like further explanations and elaborations on any of the above, do tell me.
****As above
But yes, I actually agree with you that we might call existence God. Where we disagree is whether God/existence have a quality called "transcendence" and various other points.
***a further point is the discussion of the variety of consciousness
"*****So are you saying that if you see a sportscar cruise down the street you think it was designed by the ferrari company or it just happened due to a freak in the laws of cause without an intelligent designer? Cause can be broken by the appropriate level of intelligence – god’s intelligence is greater than ours"
No, I do not. As I view causality as stemming from a fundamental of existence(relation) which cannot be broken, even by God, whom also depends on it. The "normal causes" may be able to be broken by a being of sufficient power, though. That is to say, God could theoretically assemble a Ferrari from raw elements in an instant.
*****Why not? It raises the question how such an antity could be god in the true sense if there are potencies greater than him - of course, as I seem to be saying quite a lot here, such a view is enetertined by taking one's own ontology as a yard stick for determining gods, which is fallacious
"****Unless there is a unique quality of the causelessthing that cannot be replicated by any of the effects"
This unique quality must be quantified and demonstrated to be so.
*****Well there is certainly no other example of an object with causeless or eternal qualities that can account for the vaiety of perceivable phenomena arrayed before us.
"****How do you know that the universe doesn’t have a cause?"
If casuality doesn't hold true in all cases and at all time, anything could theoretically not have a cause.
*****Except that we see that many things, in fact all things, have causes - this however doesn't address the origin of tempral things
"****Saying the causeless quality of the universe is bereft of consciousness (ie impersonal) doesn’t explain the phenomena of consciousness -"
How do you solve this phenomena? By postulating it one half of the categories of existence which precedes the other half (matter). Yet you do not show us how this consciousness could be so divorced from matter, nor many other things.
*****Its obvious how consciousness is divorced from matter - it may not be obvious how matter emmanates from god, since as the cause of all causes there are very good reasons for him not being a commonly perceivable object
"*****Where would you go to be removed from god? "
Precisely. We could not go anywhere. God is omnipresent. However, supposing that we -could-, we'd be annihilated, and God having lost something of himself, could no longer be himself, as he'd lack infinity, eternity, and everything.
****Therefore our seperation from god is illusion (for us of course) and illusion is the precise facility offerred by dull matter for the living entity (again this opportunity for illusion is granted by god since he manifests the medium for illusion)
"****perhaps – if you don’t know what is the cause of water you can experience difficulty in its absence"
To what extent are you claiming this, though? Practical or absolute cause of water?
*****The absolute cause is practical - if there is no water what will you drink- our necessities for living are provided not by industry or enterprise but by superior powers of management
"****** All of the perceprions are illusory, since it is only by the existence of a soul within the material body that the breast has any value – who is interested in a dead woman’s breast?"
Necrophiles, but that is besides the point.
****And is that normal or abnormal behaviour?
But anyway, is it again illusory or just a matter of subjective value? It is a temporal thing, in that it is found in the subjective whims of a single being - or really, many beings, as many people value breasts as an object of sexual attraction - but it is certainly real that such people value such things. Moreover, a breast can be beautiful and even sexually appealing without being alive. There are some very beautiful statues of female nudes.
****Yet nobody has ever married one - they only are attractive because theygive an indication of the real thing
"*****Without trees (also consciousness) wooden bridges or houses do not exist"
Trees are conscious, yes, but clearly we are not taking "tree consciousness" when we blocks or boards of wood from it. That is, we are using the organic compound of wood.
****The dead bodies of trees - hence wooden houses owe their cause to consciousness since the wood was not manufactured and the builders were also conscious
"******Then why bother endeavouring for a once in a lifetime experience since you are obviously just setting yourself up for a horrible experience? If this is really your view think most others would disagree"
Because at the time the experience is joyful. It is only when it is replaced that it is horrible relative to the greater experience.
Consider this:
A man who has 1 dollar suddenly has 1000 dollars. Great news!
Another man who has 1 million dollars, suddenly has 1000 dollars. Horrible news!
What can be happy at the time, can be made unhappy by other times in relation to that new time.
*****So receiving $1000 becomes horrible after receiving $10 0000? The point about godis thathe never suffers loss or degradation -hence the amounts are always increasing
"******The reason one can never know exactly how god moves matter is because that is a quality that distinguishes god from the living entity – you can know enough to trace the source but as far establishing yourself as “god” by being able to observe and replicate god’s potencies it will never work, just as endeavouring to be your own father is not constituitionally possible"
Then we never have any reason to suspect that God us either telling us the truth or that God moves it at all.
****Anymore that the person who our mother calls husband is our father
"*****The above statement is mostly true, except that there is also the transcendence of our own existence in the equation – because god is assisting us in control of matter we have the illusion of potency in this world"
So we have -some- power, but not -enough- and God supplements it?
****Actually we have no potency beyond the ability to desire, that is why whatever we have in the name of potency or assets can be lost in an instant - despite the desire (material desire) to lord it over material nature we are never properly situated on such a platform(although there is false confidence which may dictate otherwise)
"******lol – he’s not teaching rifle manufacture"
Well he should! We could use some better ones. But anyway: Does God teach us merely the application or the full knowledge of the thing?
*****Ithink I have lost the thread of this ..... Application or fullknowledge of what?
"*****It emanated from god, just like heat emmanates from fire – god is eternal and we are eternal but god is the cause of all causes and we are not
. "
Yet if we have imperfections and came from God, could not out free-will be similarly imperfect?
*****How could free willbe perfect if you didn't have the opportunity to make mistakes? I thinkI have already established before that god has more free will than us because he never operates out of a superior paradigm (ie conditioned life)
"*****Does a rope bite a person if they think it is a snake?"
No. As this would be a physical act which cannot result from a mental mistake which does not inspire positive action. It would be a mental mistake to say that the rope was a snake and that it bit one, though.
****Depends on your level of illusion - for instance suppose in the terror of jumping from the rope snake you brushed against a rose thorn and then started moaning how you have only moments left to live since you were bitten by a poisonous snake ... this is effectively what people do in conditioned life under illusion - get all excited with the prospect of acquiring things that cause lamentation when they eventually leave
"*****You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink – application requires the appropriate attitude to free will"
Yet God could not make it so that the application could not be done incorrectly in anyway?
*****Well he gives instruction through scripture - if you don't apply your free will to that, for whatever reason, who's fault is it? In otherwords is god's position in this world nothing more than a personal servant in our gardens of enjoyment?
"***But I never said what was possible for god is possible for the jiva (living entity) "
It stands to reason that if God is free and perfect, then God could also create or augment all things to be free and perfect, as free and perfect are not absurdities to pair together. It would even be a failure on the part of God not to do so.
*****that perfect creation exists in the spiritualworld -the alternative is what we have before us - the alternative is required for free will to exist
"*******This vision of detachment is not possible (at least with 100% surety ) unless one can see the owner, god – the alternative to not perceiving god is that you wind up attached to matter (and suffer accordingly)"
Why is it not? Could not one simply say "wow, I do not own this, because clearly it will pass away" and be done with it?
*****Temporarily one can situate oneself on that platform but because we have an enjoying spirit (part of god's quality) soon or later we will apply that enjoying spirit to either spirit or matter according to whether we are liberated or conditioned - repression accomplishes nothing - it is only by perceiving the higher quality of enjoyment of superior things that one is empowered to renounce inferiot things - repression accomplishes nothing - even if one has the most horrible experience from the pursuit of inferior enjoyment they will be forced to seek the same means by the enjoying nature - the classic example is sex life
"*****Yes - Life is beyond chemistry"
Well as we primarily concern ourselves with the interaction with a person's mind, it stands to reason that when their mind no longer functions and will never function again - such as death - that we recognize the person with whom we had a relationship with is gone. This does not necessitate a conception of life beyond the physical foundations for consciousness, only a recognition that the physical foundations no longer exist, hence the consciousness is annihilated.
*****But those physical foundationson which life is assumed to exist do not define life - ino therwords we weep bitterly when a person dies but in truth we never perceived "what" they essentially were
"*****The mind (distinct from intelligence) ascribes a value to those perceptions – for instance a piece of bamboo is not focused on by the intelligence because we do not find it tasty to eat but if you had a termites mind you would love it"
A termite may indeed see something and view it as food, as well as us, but is it not possible to simply sit and stare, and not make such evaluations? I believe many open-eyed meditational practices aspire and (apparently) achieve this state.
*****They are bogus teachings, or at best aimed at giving an introductory start to persons who are too grossly attached to material things - just like driving around at night time with no head lights is dangerous and the best advice is to simply say "Don't move anywhere" - but our nature dictates that we must move because the spirit soul is active nature - we cannotstop thought
"*****Are you trying to say that there is no impetus for name, fame and adoration amongst mathmeticians and the like for being the best at their science? Or even on a more basic level the feeling of pleasure at solving a complex problem as opposed to the dissapointment of error strongly indicates desire – how can one begin to accomplish something without desire? – one person may drop out of high school mathmatics and another will go on to become a PHD due to the influence of desire"
I had merely meant the process of computation. That is. The process which allows us to make sense of such statement as 3 * 6 = 18. That is to say, some people may indeed get something out of it, but the process does not seem to be rooted in desire in and of itself, only its impetus.
*****And isn't there a sense of happiness in gettingsomething right and failure in getting something wrong - in otherwords isn't there an intrinsic quality of bliss behind truth - and even if the truth is unpleasant we tend to value it?
"***When a bank teller goes to sleep he may envision himself as the wife of a medieval norweigien tomato farmer – isn’t that a distinct break in the continuum?"
In so much as his prior identity is not being referenced throughout the dream, yes. That being said, such identity is exceedingly temporal, and when we awaken and return back to our normal selves, we are a synthesis of both if we remember, even if we remember the dream as a dream, and thus has minimal impact on our personality.
*****So just as a dreaming self is temporal so is the waking self temporal to the spirit self
"*****If I delete your memory banks how can you restore them unless you have a back up somewhere? And if you only manage to salvage 75% of your existing files how does this constitute a new body of work completely distinct from the previous body of work?"
The process is clearly not a full deletion, merely a damaging of our capacity to access them.
***Therefore the memory must be stored in a superior system than the one we tend to operate out of in daily life (the mind)
With the recovery of such capacities, the memories are once again available. It is like losing the key to a door. So long as one no longer has the key, one cannot open the door. But once the key is returned or you get a new one, the door opens and you can enter the building.
****So what "door" are we operating out of while we have lost the key (unless there is a more subtle system we work out of than the mind and intelligence, since these are seen to fluctuate due to amnesia etc)
"****But while you are dreaming it is real – inotherwords you experience real emmotional responses to stimuli, and these experiences are operating out of a perceived sense of real “I” which is completely different from one’s waking “I” – th eonly difference between the waking I and the dreaming I is that the dreaming I does not have to periodically return to occupying the same recptacle, and thus one can break the waking continnum by dreaming a different state of “I” every time"
Yes. We do not consider it fake. We are quite rightfully lost in our thoughts. That being said, one's waking "I" and dream "I" are generally the same. That is, we are generally not different people in the dream. But even when we are, it is generally an imperfect union. I drempt I was a samurai last night, but throughout I had a sense of sort of merged identities, rather than a full synthesis, specifically in that earlier I was quite myself, strangling snakes and rats in my bedroom. But beyond my weird subconscious, you are correct in saying it is a break in the normal continuum of "Ihood" by placing us in fantastical situations, but when we return to the normal world, if we remember the dream those memories are still present with us, we have experienced them, but it is just not real in the sense that our waking life is real, and the experiences are usually not so intense as to fundamentally change our view of ourselves, although clearly it does in a moderate way. That is to say, we do experience a slight analogue to an amnesiac returning to his past life through recovered memories, but it is not generally intensive enough for such to make a great psychic impact.
But once again, this does not point to a spirit, merely a mind that can be wrapped up in fantasy enough that it does not consider its memories.
****While we are dreaming the waking self appears false and when we are awake the dreaming self appears false - its a paradox unless you accept a third party
"****At the very least it indicates that she had a conscious existence in that period of history, which confounds the view that this body at this particular time is the all in all for our conscious existence"
It does not necessarily demand this, although it is admittedly the most rational answer. And even if so, it does not necessitate it as transcendental.
***If it is an existence outside the parameters of the corporeal body, inclusing mind and intelligence, it sounds pretty transcendenta l to me
"*****Dreaming is not outside the body but within the mind/intelligence – dreaming bears no relation to the chemistry of our body, or grossly corporeal sense of “i”"
Fevers - a physical state - can impact dreams. This is well known. Other sicknesses and physical states can do this too. Bed wetters often have dreams of running water.
***** Fevers and bed wetting affects the mind
"*****Not only not aware of the body, but when you are dreaming you become aware of a completely different body (you can be fat/ thin or even an animal) and its not that you are pretending to be something different, like a fancy dress party, while dreaming you operate out of a completely different sense of “i” – isn’t that a break in the continuum of thinking that one’s grossly corporeal self is the “I”?"
One can indeed have a sensation of false bodies. But this stands to reason, as we're imagining sensory input. Can one not imagine the taste of lemons when one wants to? Or conjure up the smell of perfume when one wants to? A dream does this but without the unfocused nature of thoughts constantly intruded by conscious awareness. When we think we're an animal, we basically have an image of how we think an animal would feel and correspond it to that. Before I ever had whiskey, for instance, I drank it in my dreams, but when I did finally have whiskey, it tasted differently than it did in my dreams. Why? Because I simply imagined the taste beforehand.
***Imagination and the subtle body workson different principles than corporeal existence, hence it is distinct
"****Of course if you are not aware that you are aware you will not be aware of the time because to be aware of the time is to be conscious – if a person could recall the time they were unaware there would be no meaning to deep dreamless sleep as an example of the being aware that one is not aware."
Yes, precisely.
***So isn't this a third state outside of the previous two - dreaming and being awake - and doesn't this also imply a 4th state since there is the same consciousness going through all these three states?
"*****Then why does an Irishmen get upset upon hearing an Irish joke unless there is a sense of identifying with the body and not just the mind. The same with all designations of body – age, colour, height, weight etc etc "
We identify with the body in so much as it is a part of our normal course of affairs to do something related to it, to have identities requiring it, et cetera, et cetera. But what I meant is this: Primarily we are minds. No one would say that they are primarily their hands, or primarily their feet, but if you asked what makes them a person, one would answer it is their mind.
*****Admittedly identifying with the mind is a superior existence than identifying with the body, but its not a matter of identifying with the hands or feet but identifying with the situation of the body (Irish, male, young / old etc) that gives bodily identification - if you ask a person who they are they will give you information that pertains to thebody in over 99.9999% of circumstances - hence people do actually identify with the body more commonly
"*****If we didin’t detect the absence of awareness there would be no break in the continuum – in otherwords you would snap out of dreamless sleep to the immediate second that you were last conscious and would have no way to detect it unless you looked at a clock or someone told you that you had just risen from a long (or short) sleep"
That actually does occur very often. People who fall asleep for a brief period of time - but not an instant - can go on speaking or doing what they were doing as if nothing hadpassed.
****I am not familiar with this happening to people who are not senile or suffering from a similar impediment - in other words it doesn't illustrate normal beahviour
Similarly, when we are asleep we generally don't feel that any time has passed, only that we know that such time has passed as that is the general way things go, as well as the fact that the clock tells us much time has passed. Or if we do notice, it is generally from other cues, such as hearing birds sing in the morning.
***but even without these things we can still recognise that a gap in our consciousness has taken place, otherwise it would be just like blinking our eyes if we didn't have access to this third state of consciousness
"*****The laws are not spiritual – there are two types of laws – sva-dharma (laws that pertain to the body) and sanatana dharma (laws that pertain to the spirit self)"
So these are part of the former?
*****The successful performance of sva sharma can lead to sanatana dharma but sanatana dharma is superior and can transgress the former - the same cannot be said of sva dharma - in otherwords sva dharma is not evidence of the perfection of spiritual life
"***then they would be presentations of sanatana dharma, or things for everyone to follow
Do not they come into conflict with some of the above exclusions?
***Yes - this is why one requires expert guidance in the performance of religious principles rather than just taking a scripture and trying to make sense of it
"**** But then if a king walks around like a human punching bag the resulting violence on the persons who have sought his shelter (robbers, plunders etc) would constitute a bit of violence resulting from his so called non violence – resultant action is a complicated thing, - "
In which case one is damned if one does damned if one doesn't, no?
*****Which is why non violence is catergorised as apadharma - or a nearness to dharma - other apadharmas are benevolence, self control etc etc - actual dharma is surrender to god - this is the only activity that saves one from the paradox of result - or the continuing cycle of birth and death in the material world due to previous activities - hence a person does not achieve moksha by apadharma but by sanatana dharma
"*****There are different religions for different situations – the general principle religion operates on is that the rituals and ceremonies of religion automatically manifest when persons perceive something more wonderous or greater than themselves (for instance it’s not uncommon for sociologists to attribute our attitude to technology as religious”"
If there are different religions for different situations, how is this really that valid as anything but some sort of whimsy on the part of humanity?
*****If theer are varieties of whimsy there are varieties of application - for instance when the USA abolished liquor in the 1920's in simply went underground and supported the mafia so it was re-introduced - in other words if people are so sold out to bad habits socialmanagement bodies regulate it since banning it does not deliver desirable results
"*****Let me clarify the explanation – there is sreyas (long term benefit) and preyas (short term benefit) – successful religious principles operate on the principle of sreyas – any fool can detect what is the best for their immediate pleasure (a fools happiness) but long term happiness requuires a bit of foresight and wisdom (even speaking materially) – hence religious principles actually add to material prosperity, even though material prosperity is not the goal of religion (even if it is accepted as such by the less intelligent religious practioners) – and if you don’t want to get out of karma then you spend an eternity suffering the trials and tribulations of material existence until you do."
Yes. Trials and tribulations as well as joy and pleasures. This material existence is not without its enjoyable aspects.
*****But concomitant factors of material enjoyment is material suffering - a person who is akincina,or finished with the business of tryiongto squeeze out some sort of pleasure from material life is properly qualified to perform spiritual life
But as you said, religions focus on "long-term benefit", which is still a benefit. Which is fine and dandy, but it also vindicates benefit, so we can say that even short-term benefit is fine to appreciate.
*****Short term enjoyment is the enjoyment of the less intelligent
"***Basically it’s a question whether you believe your sense or authority – the nature of illusionis that it shapes our perception of the cause – how will examining the cause help a person who sees a rope as a snake and stop them running away?"
You will notice that if they run away and then come back and see the rope, they will almost assuredly realize their folly and think of themselves as quite foolish beforehand.
***My point is that as long as they perceive a rope as a snake no amount of close inspection will reveal anything - it requires a break out of illusory consciousness to directly perceive the truth - in conditioned life we are effectively running away from teh rope despite claims of authority that it is only a rope -
"*****Then compare god and money and see which has more value"
I can eat with money, I starve with God.
***Only if the eatables are provided from god for you to buy - money tastes horrible and doesn't have much nutritional value
I am reminded of a saying of some of the more skeptical Moslems: "Trust in God, but tie your camel tight."
*****God also gives us intelligence, as well as camels and eatables - is it faithlessness to properly use things in the way that are meant?
"***** It smore inclusive terminology - Spiritual spark includes all sub catergories such as sexual object – it doesn’t deny the reality of sex object but it does indicate that the sex object is an ontologically weaker proposition (since the current idea of gender, or even age which determines sexual attraction, is not an eternal quality of the spiritual spark)"
Could not we turn this around and say that sex object also includes "spiritual spark"? In that even the "spiritual spark" can be an object of sexual lust?
****No because the spiritual spark is not perceived by a person infatutaed by the bodily conscpet of life anymore than a person can see the driver of a car on a dark stormy night that fogs up the windscreen
"***Why prevalue? Compare wearing blue glasses with not wearing them"
Why prevalue? Precisely. This has been my point. Why prevalue even "spiritual spark"? Or "religion"? What I am suggesting is what you are suggesting here: Wearing no glasses whatsoever.
****But this process of not wearing any glasses is given by purification - the perfection of religion is to perceive the self with direct perecption (raja vidyam raja guhyam pavitram idam uttamam -bhagavad gita)
"*****Then you are assuming that religion is merely another relative way of seeing and not the means of discerning the nature of the absolute truth – which is also a value – there is no escaping values, only the question of discerning which values are greater and which are lesser according to their correlation to truth"
Then here is a question for you: In what way is religion the ultimate way of seeing the absolute truth and what makes it better than every other pre-value placed upon things?
*****religion pertains to god - god pertains to the absolute truth - the absolute truth contains all relative truths - inotherwords all other prevalued systems can be accommodated by religion but the same cannot be said of other prevalued systems
"*****Therefore there is a focus in religion in being free from lust wrath etc etc which colours perception – before you do thi your seeing is tainted , no matter what your IQ"
This is good, but you also cannot see things simply "in light of God", if God requires a preconception, too. Better to see things "in light of themselves".
***Just like one can see the sun and also other objects when the sun rises, with theperception of god, god becomes apparaent along with other objects -
No, I do not. As I view causality as stemming from a fundamental of existence(relation) which cannot be broken, even by God, whom also depends on it. The "normal causes" may be able to be broken by a being of sufficient power, though. That is to say, God could theoretically assemble a Ferrari from raw elements in an instant.
*****Why not? It raises the question how such an antity could be god in the true sense if there are potencies greater than him - of course, as I seem to be saying quite a lot here, such a view is enetertined by taking one's own ontology as a yard stick for determining gods, which is fallacious
"****Unless there is a unique quality of the causelessthing that cannot be replicated by any of the effects"
This unique quality must be quantified and demonstrated to be so.
*****Well there is certainly no other example of an object with causeless or eternal qualities that can account for the vaiety of perceivable phenomena arrayed before us.
"****How do you know that the universe doesn’t have a cause?"
If casuality doesn't hold true in all cases and at all time, anything could theoretically not have a cause.
*****Except that we see that many things, in fact all things, have causes - this however doesn't address the origin of tempral things
"****Saying the causeless quality of the universe is bereft of consciousness (ie impersonal) doesn’t explain the phenomena of consciousness -"
How do you solve this phenomena? By postulating it one half of the categories of existence which precedes the other half (matter). Yet you do not show us how this consciousness could be so divorced from matter, nor many other things.
*****Its obvious how consciousness is divorced from matter - it may not be obvious how matter emmanates from god, since as the cause of all causes there are very good reasons for him not being a commonly perceivable object
"*****Where would you go to be removed from god? "
Precisely. We could not go anywhere. God is omnipresent. However, supposing that we -could-, we'd be annihilated, and God having lost something of himself, could no longer be himself, as he'd lack infinity, eternity, and everything.
****Therefore our seperation from god is illusion (for us of course) and illusion is the precise facility offerred by dull matter for the living entity (again this opportunity for illusion is granted by god since he manifests the medium for illusion)
"****perhaps – if you don’t know what is the cause of water you can experience difficulty in its absence"
To what extent are you claiming this, though? Practical or absolute cause of water?
*****The absolute cause is practical - if there is no water what will you drink- our necessities for living are provided not by industry or enterprise but by superior powers of management
"****** All of the perceprions are illusory, since it is only by the existence of a soul within the material body that the breast has any value – who is interested in a dead woman’s breast?"
Necrophiles, but that is besides the point.
****And is that normal or abnormal behaviour?
But anyway, is it again illusory or just a matter of subjective value? It is a temporal thing, in that it is found in the subjective whims of a single being - or really, many beings, as many people value breasts as an object of sexual attraction - but it is certainly real that such people value such things. Moreover, a breast can be beautiful and even sexually appealing without being alive. There are some very beautiful statues of female nudes.
****Yet nobody has ever married one - they only are attractive because theygive an indication of the real thing
"*****Without trees (also consciousness) wooden bridges or houses do not exist"
Trees are conscious, yes, but clearly we are not taking "tree consciousness" when we blocks or boards of wood from it. That is, we are using the organic compound of wood.
****The dead bodies of trees - hence wooden houses owe their cause to consciousness since the wood was not manufactured and the builders were also conscious
"******Then why bother endeavouring for a once in a lifetime experience since you are obviously just setting yourself up for a horrible experience? If this is really your view think most others would disagree"
Because at the time the experience is joyful. It is only when it is replaced that it is horrible relative to the greater experience.
Consider this:
A man who has 1 dollar suddenly has 1000 dollars. Great news!
Another man who has 1 million dollars, suddenly has 1000 dollars. Horrible news!
What can be happy at the time, can be made unhappy by other times in relation to that new time.
*****So receiving $1000 becomes horrible after receiving $10 0000? The point about godis thathe never suffers loss or degradation -hence the amounts are always increasing
"******The reason one can never know exactly how god moves matter is because that is a quality that distinguishes god from the living entity – you can know enough to trace the source but as far establishing yourself as “god” by being able to observe and replicate god’s potencies it will never work, just as endeavouring to be your own father is not constituitionally possible"
Then we never have any reason to suspect that God us either telling us the truth or that God moves it at all.
****Anymore that the person who our mother calls husband is our father
"*****The above statement is mostly true, except that there is also the transcendence of our own existence in the equation – because god is assisting us in control of matter we have the illusion of potency in this world"
So we have -some- power, but not -enough- and God supplements it?
****Actually we have no potency beyond the ability to desire, that is why whatever we have in the name of potency or assets can be lost in an instant - despite the desire (material desire) to lord it over material nature we are never properly situated on such a platform(although there is false confidence which may dictate otherwise)
"******lol – he’s not teaching rifle manufacture"
Well he should! We could use some better ones. But anyway: Does God teach us merely the application or the full knowledge of the thing?
*****Ithink I have lost the thread of this ..... Application or fullknowledge of what?
"*****It emanated from god, just like heat emmanates from fire – god is eternal and we are eternal but god is the cause of all causes and we are not
. "
Yet if we have imperfections and came from God, could not out free-will be similarly imperfect?
*****How could free willbe perfect if you didn't have the opportunity to make mistakes? I thinkI have already established before that god has more free will than us because he never operates out of a superior paradigm (ie conditioned life)
"*****Does a rope bite a person if they think it is a snake?"
No. As this would be a physical act which cannot result from a mental mistake which does not inspire positive action. It would be a mental mistake to say that the rope was a snake and that it bit one, though.
****Depends on your level of illusion - for instance suppose in the terror of jumping from the rope snake you brushed against a rose thorn and then started moaning how you have only moments left to live since you were bitten by a poisonous snake ... this is effectively what people do in conditioned life under illusion - get all excited with the prospect of acquiring things that cause lamentation when they eventually leave
"*****You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink – application requires the appropriate attitude to free will"
Yet God could not make it so that the application could not be done incorrectly in anyway?
*****Well he gives instruction through scripture - if you don't apply your free will to that, for whatever reason, who's fault is it? In otherwords is god's position in this world nothing more than a personal servant in our gardens of enjoyment?
"***But I never said what was possible for god is possible for the jiva (living entity) "
It stands to reason that if God is free and perfect, then God could also create or augment all things to be free and perfect, as free and perfect are not absurdities to pair together. It would even be a failure on the part of God not to do so.
*****that perfect creation exists in the spiritualworld -the alternative is what we have before us - the alternative is required for free will to exist
"*******This vision of detachment is not possible (at least with 100% surety ) unless one can see the owner, god – the alternative to not perceiving god is that you wind up attached to matter (and suffer accordingly)"
Why is it not? Could not one simply say "wow, I do not own this, because clearly it will pass away" and be done with it?
*****Temporarily one can situate oneself on that platform but because we have an enjoying spirit (part of god's quality) soon or later we will apply that enjoying spirit to either spirit or matter according to whether we are liberated or conditioned - repression accomplishes nothing - it is only by perceiving the higher quality of enjoyment of superior things that one is empowered to renounce inferiot things - repression accomplishes nothing - even if one has the most horrible experience from the pursuit of inferior enjoyment they will be forced to seek the same means by the enjoying nature - the classic example is sex life
"*****Yes - Life is beyond chemistry"
Well as we primarily concern ourselves with the interaction with a person's mind, it stands to reason that when their mind no longer functions and will never function again - such as death - that we recognize the person with whom we had a relationship with is gone. This does not necessitate a conception of life beyond the physical foundations for consciousness, only a recognition that the physical foundations no longer exist, hence the consciousness is annihilated.
*****But those physical foundationson which life is assumed to exist do not define life - ino therwords we weep bitterly when a person dies but in truth we never perceived "what" they essentially were
"*****The mind (distinct from intelligence) ascribes a value to those perceptions – for instance a piece of bamboo is not focused on by the intelligence because we do not find it tasty to eat but if you had a termites mind you would love it"
A termite may indeed see something and view it as food, as well as us, but is it not possible to simply sit and stare, and not make such evaluations? I believe many open-eyed meditational practices aspire and (apparently) achieve this state.
*****They are bogus teachings, or at best aimed at giving an introductory start to persons who are too grossly attached to material things - just like driving around at night time with no head lights is dangerous and the best advice is to simply say "Don't move anywhere" - but our nature dictates that we must move because the spirit soul is active nature - we cannotstop thought
"*****Are you trying to say that there is no impetus for name, fame and adoration amongst mathmeticians and the like for being the best at their science? Or even on a more basic level the feeling of pleasure at solving a complex problem as opposed to the dissapointment of error strongly indicates desire – how can one begin to accomplish something without desire? – one person may drop out of high school mathmatics and another will go on to become a PHD due to the influence of desire"
I had merely meant the process of computation. That is. The process which allows us to make sense of such statement as 3 * 6 = 18. That is to say, some people may indeed get something out of it, but the process does not seem to be rooted in desire in and of itself, only its impetus.
*****And isn't there a sense of happiness in gettingsomething right and failure in getting something wrong - in otherwords isn't there an intrinsic quality of bliss behind truth - and even if the truth is unpleasant we tend to value it?
"***When a bank teller goes to sleep he may envision himself as the wife of a medieval norweigien tomato farmer – isn’t that a distinct break in the continuum?"
In so much as his prior identity is not being referenced throughout the dream, yes. That being said, such identity is exceedingly temporal, and when we awaken and return back to our normal selves, we are a synthesis of both if we remember, even if we remember the dream as a dream, and thus has minimal impact on our personality.
*****So just as a dreaming self is temporal so is the waking self temporal to the spirit self
"*****If I delete your memory banks how can you restore them unless you have a back up somewhere? And if you only manage to salvage 75% of your existing files how does this constitute a new body of work completely distinct from the previous body of work?"
The process is clearly not a full deletion, merely a damaging of our capacity to access them.
***Therefore the memory must be stored in a superior system than the one we tend to operate out of in daily life (the mind)
With the recovery of such capacities, the memories are once again available. It is like losing the key to a door. So long as one no longer has the key, one cannot open the door. But once the key is returned or you get a new one, the door opens and you can enter the building.
****So what "door" are we operating out of while we have lost the key (unless there is a more subtle system we work out of than the mind and intelligence, since these are seen to fluctuate due to amnesia etc)
"****But while you are dreaming it is real – inotherwords you experience real emmotional responses to stimuli, and these experiences are operating out of a perceived sense of real “I” which is completely different from one’s waking “I” – th eonly difference between the waking I and the dreaming I is that the dreaming I does not have to periodically return to occupying the same recptacle, and thus one can break the waking continnum by dreaming a different state of “I” every time"
Yes. We do not consider it fake. We are quite rightfully lost in our thoughts. That being said, one's waking "I" and dream "I" are generally the same. That is, we are generally not different people in the dream. But even when we are, it is generally an imperfect union. I drempt I was a samurai last night, but throughout I had a sense of sort of merged identities, rather than a full synthesis, specifically in that earlier I was quite myself, strangling snakes and rats in my bedroom. But beyond my weird subconscious, you are correct in saying it is a break in the normal continuum of "Ihood" by placing us in fantastical situations, but when we return to the normal world, if we remember the dream those memories are still present with us, we have experienced them, but it is just not real in the sense that our waking life is real, and the experiences are usually not so intense as to fundamentally change our view of ourselves, although clearly it does in a moderate way. That is to say, we do experience a slight analogue to an amnesiac returning to his past life through recovered memories, but it is not generally intensive enough for such to make a great psychic impact.
But once again, this does not point to a spirit, merely a mind that can be wrapped up in fantasy enough that it does not consider its memories.
****While we are dreaming the waking self appears false and when we are awake the dreaming self appears false - its a paradox unless you accept a third party
"****At the very least it indicates that she had a conscious existence in that period of history, which confounds the view that this body at this particular time is the all in all for our conscious existence"
It does not necessarily demand this, although it is admittedly the most rational answer. And even if so, it does not necessitate it as transcendental.
***If it is an existence outside the parameters of the corporeal body, inclusing mind and intelligence, it sounds pretty transcendenta l to me
"*****Dreaming is not outside the body but within the mind/intelligence – dreaming bears no relation to the chemistry of our body, or grossly corporeal sense of “i”"
Fevers - a physical state - can impact dreams. This is well known. Other sicknesses and physical states can do this too. Bed wetters often have dreams of running water.
***** Fevers and bed wetting affects the mind
"*****Not only not aware of the body, but when you are dreaming you become aware of a completely different body (you can be fat/ thin or even an animal) and its not that you are pretending to be something different, like a fancy dress party, while dreaming you operate out of a completely different sense of “i” – isn’t that a break in the continuum of thinking that one’s grossly corporeal self is the “I”?"
One can indeed have a sensation of false bodies. But this stands to reason, as we're imagining sensory input. Can one not imagine the taste of lemons when one wants to? Or conjure up the smell of perfume when one wants to? A dream does this but without the unfocused nature of thoughts constantly intruded by conscious awareness. When we think we're an animal, we basically have an image of how we think an animal would feel and correspond it to that. Before I ever had whiskey, for instance, I drank it in my dreams, but when I did finally have whiskey, it tasted differently than it did in my dreams. Why? Because I simply imagined the taste beforehand.
***Imagination and the subtle body workson different principles than corporeal existence, hence it is distinct
"****Of course if you are not aware that you are aware you will not be aware of the time because to be aware of the time is to be conscious – if a person could recall the time they were unaware there would be no meaning to deep dreamless sleep as an example of the being aware that one is not aware."
Yes, precisely.
***So isn't this a third state outside of the previous two - dreaming and being awake - and doesn't this also imply a 4th state since there is the same consciousness going through all these three states?
"*****Then why does an Irishmen get upset upon hearing an Irish joke unless there is a sense of identifying with the body and not just the mind. The same with all designations of body – age, colour, height, weight etc etc "
We identify with the body in so much as it is a part of our normal course of affairs to do something related to it, to have identities requiring it, et cetera, et cetera. But what I meant is this: Primarily we are minds. No one would say that they are primarily their hands, or primarily their feet, but if you asked what makes them a person, one would answer it is their mind.
*****Admittedly identifying with the mind is a superior existence than identifying with the body, but its not a matter of identifying with the hands or feet but identifying with the situation of the body (Irish, male, young / old etc) that gives bodily identification - if you ask a person who they are they will give you information that pertains to thebody in over 99.9999% of circumstances - hence people do actually identify with the body more commonly
"*****If we didin’t detect the absence of awareness there would be no break in the continuum – in otherwords you would snap out of dreamless sleep to the immediate second that you were last conscious and would have no way to detect it unless you looked at a clock or someone told you that you had just risen from a long (or short) sleep"
That actually does occur very often. People who fall asleep for a brief period of time - but not an instant - can go on speaking or doing what they were doing as if nothing hadpassed.
****I am not familiar with this happening to people who are not senile or suffering from a similar impediment - in other words it doesn't illustrate normal beahviour
Similarly, when we are asleep we generally don't feel that any time has passed, only that we know that such time has passed as that is the general way things go, as well as the fact that the clock tells us much time has passed. Or if we do notice, it is generally from other cues, such as hearing birds sing in the morning.
***but even without these things we can still recognise that a gap in our consciousness has taken place, otherwise it would be just like blinking our eyes if we didn't have access to this third state of consciousness
"*****The laws are not spiritual – there are two types of laws – sva-dharma (laws that pertain to the body) and sanatana dharma (laws that pertain to the spirit self)"
So these are part of the former?
*****The successful performance of sva sharma can lead to sanatana dharma but sanatana dharma is superior and can transgress the former - the same cannot be said of sva dharma - in otherwords sva dharma is not evidence of the perfection of spiritual life
"***then they would be presentations of sanatana dharma, or things for everyone to follow
Do not they come into conflict with some of the above exclusions?
***Yes - this is why one requires expert guidance in the performance of religious principles rather than just taking a scripture and trying to make sense of it
"**** But then if a king walks around like a human punching bag the resulting violence on the persons who have sought his shelter (robbers, plunders etc) would constitute a bit of violence resulting from his so called non violence – resultant action is a complicated thing, - "
In which case one is damned if one does damned if one doesn't, no?
*****Which is why non violence is catergorised as apadharma - or a nearness to dharma - other apadharmas are benevolence, self control etc etc - actual dharma is surrender to god - this is the only activity that saves one from the paradox of result - or the continuing cycle of birth and death in the material world due to previous activities - hence a person does not achieve moksha by apadharma but by sanatana dharma
"*****There are different religions for different situations – the general principle religion operates on is that the rituals and ceremonies of religion automatically manifest when persons perceive something more wonderous or greater than themselves (for instance it’s not uncommon for sociologists to attribute our attitude to technology as religious”"
If there are different religions for different situations, how is this really that valid as anything but some sort of whimsy on the part of humanity?
*****If theer are varieties of whimsy there are varieties of application - for instance when the USA abolished liquor in the 1920's in simply went underground and supported the mafia so it was re-introduced - in other words if people are so sold out to bad habits socialmanagement bodies regulate it since banning it does not deliver desirable results
"*****Let me clarify the explanation – there is sreyas (long term benefit) and preyas (short term benefit) – successful religious principles operate on the principle of sreyas – any fool can detect what is the best for their immediate pleasure (a fools happiness) but long term happiness requuires a bit of foresight and wisdom (even speaking materially) – hence religious principles actually add to material prosperity, even though material prosperity is not the goal of religion (even if it is accepted as such by the less intelligent religious practioners) – and if you don’t want to get out of karma then you spend an eternity suffering the trials and tribulations of material existence until you do."
Yes. Trials and tribulations as well as joy and pleasures. This material existence is not without its enjoyable aspects.
*****But concomitant factors of material enjoyment is material suffering - a person who is akincina,or finished with the business of tryiongto squeeze out some sort of pleasure from material life is properly qualified to perform spiritual life
But as you said, religions focus on "long-term benefit", which is still a benefit. Which is fine and dandy, but it also vindicates benefit, so we can say that even short-term benefit is fine to appreciate.
*****Short term enjoyment is the enjoyment of the less intelligent
"***Basically it’s a question whether you believe your sense or authority – the nature of illusionis that it shapes our perception of the cause – how will examining the cause help a person who sees a rope as a snake and stop them running away?"
You will notice that if they run away and then come back and see the rope, they will almost assuredly realize their folly and think of themselves as quite foolish beforehand.
***My point is that as long as they perceive a rope as a snake no amount of close inspection will reveal anything - it requires a break out of illusory consciousness to directly perceive the truth - in conditioned life we are effectively running away from teh rope despite claims of authority that it is only a rope -
"*****Then compare god and money and see which has more value"
I can eat with money, I starve with God.
***Only if the eatables are provided from god for you to buy - money tastes horrible and doesn't have much nutritional value
I am reminded of a saying of some of the more skeptical Moslems: "Trust in God, but tie your camel tight."
*****God also gives us intelligence, as well as camels and eatables - is it faithlessness to properly use things in the way that are meant?
"***** It smore inclusive terminology - Spiritual spark includes all sub catergories such as sexual object – it doesn’t deny the reality of sex object but it does indicate that the sex object is an ontologically weaker proposition (since the current idea of gender, or even age which determines sexual attraction, is not an eternal quality of the spiritual spark)"
Could not we turn this around and say that sex object also includes "spiritual spark"? In that even the "spiritual spark" can be an object of sexual lust?
****No because the spiritual spark is not perceived by a person infatutaed by the bodily conscpet of life anymore than a person can see the driver of a car on a dark stormy night that fogs up the windscreen
"***Why prevalue? Compare wearing blue glasses with not wearing them"
Why prevalue? Precisely. This has been my point. Why prevalue even "spiritual spark"? Or "religion"? What I am suggesting is what you are suggesting here: Wearing no glasses whatsoever.
****But this process of not wearing any glasses is given by purification - the perfection of religion is to perceive the self with direct perecption (raja vidyam raja guhyam pavitram idam uttamam -bhagavad gita)
"*****Then you are assuming that religion is merely another relative way of seeing and not the means of discerning the nature of the absolute truth – which is also a value – there is no escaping values, only the question of discerning which values are greater and which are lesser according to their correlation to truth"
Then here is a question for you: In what way is religion the ultimate way of seeing the absolute truth and what makes it better than every other pre-value placed upon things?
*****religion pertains to god - god pertains to the absolute truth - the absolute truth contains all relative truths - inotherwords all other prevalued systems can be accommodated by religion but the same cannot be said of other prevalued systems
"*****Therefore there is a focus in religion in being free from lust wrath etc etc which colours perception – before you do thi your seeing is tainted , no matter what your IQ"
This is good, but you also cannot see things simply "in light of God", if God requires a preconception, too. Better to see things "in light of themselves".
***Just like one can see the sun and also other objects when the sun rises, with theperception of god, god becomes apparaent along with other objects -
"****No more than the claim that everyone is mortal (in the absence of fully investigating the claim)"
It is a bit different to speak of all humans being mortal and God being infallible. We have knowledge of mortal humans - it is at least feasible - but no being we know of is infallible. That is to say, infallibility is not even known relatively to us, mortality most certainly is.
*****We perceive death as infallible then, which is a potency of god
"******When you say fire is hot is that ascribing or observing?"
Observing. But are you claiming to experience God as one might experience fire?
****Yes
"*****Well that is the system of learning that goes on in 99% of all realm of education (including science)- bringing everything within one's direct perception is neither possible nor practical"
It is practically necessary, yes. I do not deny the pragmatic aspects of this. But we never know something until we can experience it ourselves if it is a non-logical truth.
*****Then we never know anything by this definition since 99.99% of knowledge is not directly perceivable to us
"****That's the difference between a guess and a message from authoritative sources - an authoritative source actually knows but a guesser doesn't"
An authority certainly knows if they have themselves seen it, but my ignorance on the subject is the same as if it was a coin toss. That is to say, the authority may have full justification for claiming something, but I myself do not, even when listening to such authority. Moreover, it stands to reason that the authority cannot be listened to till one is certain of his credentials with epistemological certainy of even accepting him as an authority.
*****By following authority one can get the same direct perception as they do - that is the epistemology, whether religious or otherwise
"***So what are some examples of things researchers have really "cared" about to investigate things properly? I would sasy that its not practical that we investigate things like that - and practically you see that what goes on in the name of information is acquired from authority, whether it is a scientist telling you about the dark side of the moon or some other claim"
Many things. Engineering, art, writing, language, biology...All of these things have been investigated and are still being investigated for a full scope of knowledge.
*****Many of These are things inferior to our existence - in otherwords they are byproducts of our social cultural existence - as for biology and engineering I don't think you can classify them as things that have been fully investigated since new species of life are being "discovered" and according to the design of a bumble bee (by our understanding of aircraft engineering) it should not be able to fly the way it does
Practically y ou are correct, it is worthless to investigate everything individually. No one is to be expected to know everything there is about any of those things, but for experts in the field, who must achieve that perfection of knowledge as much as possible.
***therefore there are experts in the field of religion (and admittedly quacks as well)
"****So what are some exapmples of subtle claims in science compared to the milk example - I mean you could even have some far flung theory of physica that the milk will not be in th efridge after youclose the door because the material componants of the milk could randomly reform into anitmatter etc etc "
You could have that theory, but you must have some reason to suggest that theory in science, based on observation and various other things.
***The point is that directly perceiving something and applying the situationm of that perception to other circumstances (extrapolilation) as a means of arriving at the absolute truth is faulty
"***Therefore we rely on authority - not just so called religious fanatics who have been brain washed"
For practical matters, yes. But the difference in authority is that the authority of scientists, artists, et cetera, are based on empirical observation, skill, and other such things.
***Such direct perceptions are not automatically authoritative - see above
The religious do not have such a foundation. Few, if any, of the claims of religion can be verified empirically, and generally there is a great lack of philosophic truth in religion, although some get closer to others.
****The claims of religion,particularlyas they pertain to self realisation and the realisation are perceivable at every step of the way just as a person who is hungry perceives nourishment, relief from hunger and pleasure with every bite
"*****So in other words when the plug is pulled in the kitchen sink and a person is buried at sea it is practically the same phenomena because they are both essentially composed of the same material ingredients? In other words it also seems a bit strange to attribute consciousness to amaterial phenomena because we innately rebel against such a concept at every moment (we do not want to die)"
Ultimately, yes, it is only a material transmission. However, an important relation - making a conscious entity - is lost at death, which is not found in water going down a sink.
***thereforeconsciousness deserves a special classification beyond the mere classification of the material elements that it is seen to inhabit
Similarly, we do not want to die as it means the ending of our consciousness.
*** That's why death is an artificial imposition on the eternal spirit - due to identifyingg with the body, despite whatever we acquire in the nameof so-called pleasure, is illusory because death is an unnatural proposal to the living entity (ceasing to be)
This does not mean we do not have a material foundation for our consciousness, only that we do not want it to cease, as it would mean we no longer existed, and thus could not persist in our various things we hold as important.
****They seem important only due to illusion, just as a rope appears dangerous due to the perception of it being a snake
"***Just illustrates something about how the seller may have a faulty system of authority rather than the giver of the gold coin - an actual gold coin does not diminsih or transform in the absence of the seer to behold its potency, but if they have knowledg eof its application there is no difference in the fruit of results of an apparent "knower" and an "unknower""
On the contrary, if there is no way to verify that what one has is indeed a gold coin, it's value is indeed diminished. It becomes that which is unknown. it could be right, could be wrong.
***You can test it by buying soemthing
Any authority beyond the ken of humanity to rigorously prove it is true, is thus worthless, as we cannot be sure what it is is good.
****UNles you progress by gradual installments in direct perception of the phenomena - its not like one jumps on to the liberated platform by claims of transcendendal bravado
Again, almost any system can make results, but it does not mean that outside the system this is so. It would be folly to afford religious authority to chess just because it is internally consistant.
***religion offers results not to be found in any other system
"****In theparadigm of perceiving objective phenomena (ie truth) is what one wants to establish I think these vices are not helpful"
I agree.
"***Thats the point- lust anger etc indicates dishonesty"
I agree. But so does religion, which colours the world before perception. It is another paradigm.
***The paradigm of the truth (absence of lust etc), hence it is superior
If religion may be better than lust, it is only a scale of paradigm evils, just as we can say that thievery is less a crime than murder, but both are still a crime.
***Both are perceptions, but the point is that there is improper perception and proper perception - proper perception necessitates that one is self controlled etc, although a self controlled person may not necessarily be liberated since it is apadharmic (a sub religious principle)
"***Because one is no deeply dyed by ones subjective colours - for instance one scientist who wanted to advocate that men were more intelligent than woman chose a small female specimen and a large male specimen and crammed the male skull fullof lead and lightly topped up the female one to prove his claims"
So you relate goodness to objectivity? If so, I will agree.
*****Does this clarify the above three responses?
"***The point is that people did not perceive anything disgusting, but nonethless we are naturally adverse to eating such food products, even if they appear to have no revolting appearance - why? Because there is a natural gradation of values"
Well I rather instead focus on the fact that it comes from something which we declare disgusting, namely, feces. This is the source, not a "natural gradation of values", but our disgust of the unpleasantness of feces. Some people do not have this, though. In fact, some people are sexually aroused by such. Let's not get into that, though.
"***Its prefernce is ignorance - therefore the living entity has acquired a pig's body to perceive a certain practice as pleasurable (ie they got down graded)"
How is it ignorant to not mind human-feces derived butter? How is it "innately downgraded" by it? It seems a preference. I cannot rightfully claim it is wrong to eat such butter.
***Superior consciousness grants the ability to discern values - compare your football hooligan to your university professor
"***But why hold god to such an epistemology when we donot even properly exist in such a definition - for instance how the body is driven by consciousness is not established as a material phenomena"
That has yet to be proven.
***So why insist on proving god by an epistemology that doesn't even prove our own existence?
"***What absolutes do you perceive in science then? BTW I assume you are coming from a scientific angle - If I may ask what is your professional interest in science, if you have one ... "
My professional interest? I am not a professional scientist. I am a professional philosopher (I am currently seeking a doctorate in philosophy to employ myself full-time as a professor of such).
****If you ever get the chance you should try reading the works of Jiva Gosvami, particularly his sandarbhas, but I imagine if you are doing a doctorate you don't have heaps of spare time
I am an amateur scientist, though, and enthusiast, and have some scientific background and own some instruments, with which I often do small scale chemistry and physics experiments for fun. I also keep abreast of scientific information and understand and incorporate such ideas and theories into my own worldview.
But as to the absolute in science: Science can only be built upon metaphysical premises, such as the validity of sensory knowledge, the objectivity of experience, et cetera, et cetera.
***Its interesting that the objectivity of perception is seen (by some) tobe the new cutting edge of science
http://www.vtweb.com/gosai/science/consciousness-in-science.html
That is to say, it needs objective philosophy to support it before it can do something, thus its sense of the absolute is related to the absolute principles which philosophy offers. Moreover, it has an absolute foundation for knowledge in the empirical realm, which is one of two broader categories of truth (the other being the mental/logical/philosophical). Without either of these thing, science would be worthless. In the first cas it would have no foundations whatsoever and one could deny any of its claims, whereas in the second case it would not be the means whereby knowledge of the empirical world could be found, hence, useless.
***So how do you reconcile in the revision of truth by science - inotherwords "facts" in science are often revealednot to be facts by the very epistemology that established them - in otherwords the epistemology of empiricism doesn't seem conducive to the establishment of truth, only its redefinition (inother words it is not paarticularly truthful)
It is a bit different to speak of all humans being mortal and God being infallible. We have knowledge of mortal humans - it is at least feasible - but no being we know of is infallible. That is to say, infallibility is not even known relatively to us, mortality most certainly is.
*****We perceive death as infallible then, which is a potency of god
"******When you say fire is hot is that ascribing or observing?"
Observing. But are you claiming to experience God as one might experience fire?
****Yes
"*****Well that is the system of learning that goes on in 99% of all realm of education (including science)- bringing everything within one's direct perception is neither possible nor practical"
It is practically necessary, yes. I do not deny the pragmatic aspects of this. But we never know something until we can experience it ourselves if it is a non-logical truth.
*****Then we never know anything by this definition since 99.99% of knowledge is not directly perceivable to us
"****That's the difference between a guess and a message from authoritative sources - an authoritative source actually knows but a guesser doesn't"
An authority certainly knows if they have themselves seen it, but my ignorance on the subject is the same as if it was a coin toss. That is to say, the authority may have full justification for claiming something, but I myself do not, even when listening to such authority. Moreover, it stands to reason that the authority cannot be listened to till one is certain of his credentials with epistemological certainy of even accepting him as an authority.
*****By following authority one can get the same direct perception as they do - that is the epistemology, whether religious or otherwise
"***So what are some examples of things researchers have really "cared" about to investigate things properly? I would sasy that its not practical that we investigate things like that - and practically you see that what goes on in the name of information is acquired from authority, whether it is a scientist telling you about the dark side of the moon or some other claim"
Many things. Engineering, art, writing, language, biology...All of these things have been investigated and are still being investigated for a full scope of knowledge.
*****Many of These are things inferior to our existence - in otherwords they are byproducts of our social cultural existence - as for biology and engineering I don't think you can classify them as things that have been fully investigated since new species of life are being "discovered" and according to the design of a bumble bee (by our understanding of aircraft engineering) it should not be able to fly the way it does
Practically y ou are correct, it is worthless to investigate everything individually. No one is to be expected to know everything there is about any of those things, but for experts in the field, who must achieve that perfection of knowledge as much as possible.
***therefore there are experts in the field of religion (and admittedly quacks as well)
"****So what are some exapmples of subtle claims in science compared to the milk example - I mean you could even have some far flung theory of physica that the milk will not be in th efridge after youclose the door because the material componants of the milk could randomly reform into anitmatter etc etc "
You could have that theory, but you must have some reason to suggest that theory in science, based on observation and various other things.
***The point is that directly perceiving something and applying the situationm of that perception to other circumstances (extrapolilation) as a means of arriving at the absolute truth is faulty
"***Therefore we rely on authority - not just so called religious fanatics who have been brain washed"
For practical matters, yes. But the difference in authority is that the authority of scientists, artists, et cetera, are based on empirical observation, skill, and other such things.
***Such direct perceptions are not automatically authoritative - see above
The religious do not have such a foundation. Few, if any, of the claims of religion can be verified empirically, and generally there is a great lack of philosophic truth in religion, although some get closer to others.
****The claims of religion,particularlyas they pertain to self realisation and the realisation are perceivable at every step of the way just as a person who is hungry perceives nourishment, relief from hunger and pleasure with every bite
"*****So in other words when the plug is pulled in the kitchen sink and a person is buried at sea it is practically the same phenomena because they are both essentially composed of the same material ingredients? In other words it also seems a bit strange to attribute consciousness to amaterial phenomena because we innately rebel against such a concept at every moment (we do not want to die)"
Ultimately, yes, it is only a material transmission. However, an important relation - making a conscious entity - is lost at death, which is not found in water going down a sink.
***thereforeconsciousness deserves a special classification beyond the mere classification of the material elements that it is seen to inhabit
Similarly, we do not want to die as it means the ending of our consciousness.
*** That's why death is an artificial imposition on the eternal spirit - due to identifyingg with the body, despite whatever we acquire in the nameof so-called pleasure, is illusory because death is an unnatural proposal to the living entity (ceasing to be)
This does not mean we do not have a material foundation for our consciousness, only that we do not want it to cease, as it would mean we no longer existed, and thus could not persist in our various things we hold as important.
****They seem important only due to illusion, just as a rope appears dangerous due to the perception of it being a snake
"***Just illustrates something about how the seller may have a faulty system of authority rather than the giver of the gold coin - an actual gold coin does not diminsih or transform in the absence of the seer to behold its potency, but if they have knowledg eof its application there is no difference in the fruit of results of an apparent "knower" and an "unknower""
On the contrary, if there is no way to verify that what one has is indeed a gold coin, it's value is indeed diminished. It becomes that which is unknown. it could be right, could be wrong.
***You can test it by buying soemthing
Any authority beyond the ken of humanity to rigorously prove it is true, is thus worthless, as we cannot be sure what it is is good.
****UNles you progress by gradual installments in direct perception of the phenomena - its not like one jumps on to the liberated platform by claims of transcendendal bravado
Again, almost any system can make results, but it does not mean that outside the system this is so. It would be folly to afford religious authority to chess just because it is internally consistant.
***religion offers results not to be found in any other system
"****In theparadigm of perceiving objective phenomena (ie truth) is what one wants to establish I think these vices are not helpful"
I agree.
"***Thats the point- lust anger etc indicates dishonesty"
I agree. But so does religion, which colours the world before perception. It is another paradigm.
***The paradigm of the truth (absence of lust etc), hence it is superior
If religion may be better than lust, it is only a scale of paradigm evils, just as we can say that thievery is less a crime than murder, but both are still a crime.
***Both are perceptions, but the point is that there is improper perception and proper perception - proper perception necessitates that one is self controlled etc, although a self controlled person may not necessarily be liberated since it is apadharmic (a sub religious principle)
"***Because one is no deeply dyed by ones subjective colours - for instance one scientist who wanted to advocate that men were more intelligent than woman chose a small female specimen and a large male specimen and crammed the male skull fullof lead and lightly topped up the female one to prove his claims"
So you relate goodness to objectivity? If so, I will agree.
*****Does this clarify the above three responses?
"***The point is that people did not perceive anything disgusting, but nonethless we are naturally adverse to eating such food products, even if they appear to have no revolting appearance - why? Because there is a natural gradation of values"
Well I rather instead focus on the fact that it comes from something which we declare disgusting, namely, feces. This is the source, not a "natural gradation of values", but our disgust of the unpleasantness of feces. Some people do not have this, though. In fact, some people are sexually aroused by such. Let's not get into that, though.
"***Its prefernce is ignorance - therefore the living entity has acquired a pig's body to perceive a certain practice as pleasurable (ie they got down graded)"
How is it ignorant to not mind human-feces derived butter? How is it "innately downgraded" by it? It seems a preference. I cannot rightfully claim it is wrong to eat such butter.
***Superior consciousness grants the ability to discern values - compare your football hooligan to your university professor
"***But why hold god to such an epistemology when we donot even properly exist in such a definition - for instance how the body is driven by consciousness is not established as a material phenomena"
That has yet to be proven.
***So why insist on proving god by an epistemology that doesn't even prove our own existence?
"***What absolutes do you perceive in science then? BTW I assume you are coming from a scientific angle - If I may ask what is your professional interest in science, if you have one ... "
My professional interest? I am not a professional scientist. I am a professional philosopher (I am currently seeking a doctorate in philosophy to employ myself full-time as a professor of such).
****If you ever get the chance you should try reading the works of Jiva Gosvami, particularly his sandarbhas, but I imagine if you are doing a doctorate you don't have heaps of spare time
I am an amateur scientist, though, and enthusiast, and have some scientific background and own some instruments, with which I often do small scale chemistry and physics experiments for fun. I also keep abreast of scientific information and understand and incorporate such ideas and theories into my own worldview.
But as to the absolute in science: Science can only be built upon metaphysical premises, such as the validity of sensory knowledge, the objectivity of experience, et cetera, et cetera.
***Its interesting that the objectivity of perception is seen (by some) tobe the new cutting edge of science
http://www.vtweb.com/gosai/science/consciousness-in-science.html
That is to say, it needs objective philosophy to support it before it can do something, thus its sense of the absolute is related to the absolute principles which philosophy offers. Moreover, it has an absolute foundation for knowledge in the empirical realm, which is one of two broader categories of truth (the other being the mental/logical/philosophical). Without either of these thing, science would be worthless. In the first cas it would have no foundations whatsoever and one could deny any of its claims, whereas in the second case it would not be the means whereby knowledge of the empirical world could be found, hence, useless.
***So how do you reconcile in the revision of truth by science - inotherwords "facts" in science are often revealednot to be facts by the very epistemology that established them - in otherwords the epistemology of empiricism doesn't seem conducive to the establishment of truth, only its redefinition (inother words it is not paarticularly truthful)
lightgigantic:
"****Plato used the same basis to declare that there must be a transcendental realm - in other words you can view virtually everything in this world as a temporary phenomena, even our own material conception of self, so he postulated that this world was a shadow or reflection of a more substantial or real existence."
Yes. I recall the Platonic argument from change to the changeless. The difference is that wheras Plato proposed the Platonic Heaven, wherin the Forms reside, I propose that no such distinction need to be drawn, and attributes of changelessness and eternity and certainty can be found on the macroscopic scales of existence as an absolute.
"***This is a faulty definition - for instance an imagined snake and a real snake have something in common - they are not binary opposites, and of course neither are they the same."
For one, an imagined and real snake are not opposite in any sense but "imagined v. real". Nothingness and somethingness are necessarily oppposite from one another. Indeed, they are the only oppositions that make ultimate sense, for they can be said to be absolutely so, and without a necessity of relativity to their opposition, with somethingness never being able to be "nothingness" compared to "other somethingness", whereas tall can be short when compared to something taller.
That is to say, I fail to see what points you have to show that somethingness and nothing are not binary, absolute opposites, of one another?
"****By logic one can know enough about god to apply the process of perceiving him - logic doesn't lead to direct perception - just like you can apply logic to the idea that there must be a civil manager in society (a king/president etc) because the public utilities are functioning etc etc - from that point one could apply a process to develop a personal relationship with the king once, or at the very least endeavour to collect information about his identity so one could apply ythe relevant process - in other words developing a relationship with a king doesn't even start as long as one is not sure whether the entity even exists or not"
Well it is a peculiar aspect of God/existence that one really does not need to establish a relationship with it, on the foundation that one is all ready apart of it. Existence implies oneself as well as God. God being the whole, oneself being one (of an ininite amount of) part (s). Also, he does not have qualities which would permit of relation in anyway but how one has a relationship with the ground one walks on. That is to say, as God is not a being, you might as well have a relationship with a rock.
"****In science they end their studies with god - in religion they begin with god - that is the only difference"
Since when does science ever touch upon God?
"**Assuming of course that our mind and intelligence is an unlimited phenomena"
It clearly is unlimited in necessary truths. It is certainly impossible to ever know every single empirical fact, though.
"***Not sure how that requires a seperate definition from creation ..."
There is a difference betwixt those who mold out of clay and those who make the clay appear before molding.
"****So some logic can lead to god and some logic cannot - just like some logic can lead to no distinction between a king and a prisioner and a more advanced logic does lead to a distinction."
No. Logic need only be followed to its end and we end up with truth. It is only the abuse of logic on contingent things without proper evaluation of those things which produces absurdity and error.
"****Logic can lead to the conviction that god exists - it arises from perceiving the symptoms of an orderly universe"
Order is one of the things that most unneeds a God. Order is the only logical possibility. Chaos in order to be chaos, would have to be incapable of being chaotic, by virtue that continued chaos is a species of order.
"****God is never wrong - unlike newton he doesn't make mistakes - increase doesn't necessarily imply rectifying error in all circumstances - like if you make 100$ and the next day make $1000 its not that the $100 was wrong, it was simply less "
If you increase, it implies a lack before. All increasing, in fact, shows a limitation of a prior state. Therefore, God was flawed in one way, he was lacking something which has increased, and therefore God is to be considered degraded if he ever had a prior existence as something less than that which he is now.
"****But you can not perceive whether spiritual bodies have form if you do not perceive the spiritual - just like a deep water fish has no experience of the medium of air, but that doesn't mean there is no such things as birds - in other words unless one has applied the appropriate epistemology to discern spiritual things that question cannot be answered by them."
If I take a fish out of the water, it experiences air. Where then is this transcendent realm, that we might not flop out of the ocean? And no, not simply training to "see things this way", but to see things objectively.
"***So I guess the first point is to establish whether there are eternal things in creation - and if those eternal things have no form, how did form (the material variety) develop from something that has no form?"
Well what is even a thing without a form? That seems like an insensible concept to begin with. Things have forms. To not have a form is not to be a thning. Unless you can show something which has no form yet exists.
But yes. If you have some evidence of that, go for it.
"****Whats is the substance of thought - are you implying the chemical quality of a "thought" (science cannot establish that thoughts are chemical to begin with) - how is this distinct from content?"
No. I was asking whether a transcendent thought is of transcent substance, a material thought of material substance. Or if both thoughts of transcendence and material are both transcendent in substance? I.E. What is a thought composed of?
"****The fan example still holds up since the dead insect cannot kick its legs forever - or alternatively The body is a machine and it requires consciousness to move - in this circumstance it would be the consciousness of the person prodding the dead insect that causes it to move "
It might just as likely have been a gust of wind that induced the reaction.
"****What exactly are the material things that produce consciousness - if a person with a leather glove hands you $100 did the glove give you $100 or the person?"
The glove is around an organic hand that is controlled by the entity that is created by that body. But what are material things that produce consciousness? Lifeforms.
"****Just like heat comes and goes from a fire - the source is constant but the symptoms may or may not be constant - so just as heat, whether greater or lesser is always a constant of fire, thoughts are always constantly happening as long as one is consciousness - just try and stop thinking for a moment to see if this statement is false"
Yet here you have a species of the ephmeral in the transcedent, that is, the capacity for transcendence to have something non-eternal about it, I.E. thoughts that come and go. Moreover, simply because the process of thought-to-thought may be perpetual, does not mean that the individual thoughts are. Just because every day is followed by another, does not mean that each day lasts forever. THat is to say, this seems to be a complete and utterly transcendent thing - thoughts - which come and go, have a genesis and a termination, and therefore is not eternal. If the transient can so exist in transcendence, does not the idea that "all transcendent things are eternal" come crashing down? For here we have something which is of wholly transcendent character but of extreme temporality.
Also, it is possible to still the thoughts, in two ways: 1. Sleep/unconsciousness. 2. Meditation. I have done both, though the second takes time and effort.
"In that the soul is eternal whereas the mind is temporary and based on individuated life?
***Yes"
So the real distinction is not betwixt body and mind, but body and soul?
"*** Then why if those conditions are materially reproduced without consciousness, consciousness does not take place?"
By definition such could not happen, unless casuality is an arbitrary process, which I'd argue is nonsense.
Do you have any proof of there ever being a constructed lifeform that somehow did not manifest conciousness by virtue of being alive and set and everything?
"****A ghost is a living entity without a body - in other words just a mind and intelligence - they don't have a material body to fulfill their desires so most ghosts are crazy and mostly "possess" persons (take over a person's mind intelligence, albeit temporarily) so they can fulfill a few desires - persons who commit suicide usually receive a ghosts body as sinful reaction for discarding their corporeal existence whimsically "
I cannot comment on this, as I have no idea about anything related to ghosts beyond ancedetal statements. I am not a parapsychologist of any reknown.
"*****So if one can perceive a will in the universe what does that indicate? The fact that the universe operates in certain ways and not in others (like the sun always appears in the east etc) indicates a will."
We human beings see many things in many things. Some human beings seen jesus Christ in potato chips, others the blessed virgin Mary in grilled-cheese sandwiches. That some people might affirm that there is a will in the universe is irrelevant. For one, they must prove that there is a will. Similarly, you must prove there is one, for how does the universe's operation imply a will? We have natural laws, not a consciousness, to account for how things react. Similarly, how do you perceive a will's action but for the acts of those things which are not caused by a will?
"*****Result is dependant on god just as sunshine is dependant on the sun - just like in a household where one person is earning all the money, if anyone buys a nything they buy it with his money "
Well let me ask you this: Which position do you take? That God and the law of result are one in the same thing - that is to say, that Law of Result is part of God as his omniscience or omnipresence is - or that God created the law of result?
"***God always exists and we have always existed - just like as long as a fire exists heat always exists - there is no chronological difference between the "appearance" of the fire and heat - the difference is that heat is caused by the fire - it is due to the fire's existence that the heat is in existence - without the fire there is no question of heat"
Yet it would stand to reason that if we were not what we are, then God would be rather like a cause without an effect, that is to say, non-existence. In Buddhism there is a concept of "co-dependent origination", which postulates that due to the necessary connection betwixt cause and effect, that one cannot speak of them divorced, and that in some ways, effect causes-cause. This seems to be the case here. For without what we are, God could not be.
What is fire without heat? Well, certainly not fire.
"****Black hole researchers may disagree "
Black holes do not annihilate space. They are not voids. They are in fact, ultimate expressions of space, in that they persist for trillions of years at such gravity that not even light can escape them.
"****consider the difference between having a 1 hour nap and having your hand held on a hot plate for 1 hour - both occurred in the same period but one is perceived to be excrutiating long and the other a mere moment - in other words the conscious perception of time is in "moments", and such varities of moments are not all equal even if of equal time slots"
Perception of time as flowing faster and slower from a subjective point of view does not entail the unfundamental nature of time, nor does it suggest even that time is relative, only that we can become distracted away from paying attention to time's passing in the same way. In essence, what you are saying here refutes nothing, specifically because even relative time, if it could never be divorced from existence, nor reduced to other things, would demonstrate its status as a fundamental.
"****Isn't relation a quality of consciousness, since it is consciousness which dtermines that bridge be found in a piece of wood"
No, in that physical properties are changed when put in different relations. That is to say, a bridge is not to be found in any plank of wood and therefore is something entirely different, namely an entity that is composed of that wood arranged in such a way, and it is that arrangement, which cannot be found in any individual plank, that is what gives it this whole new different physical property.
Consciousness certainly allows us to -recognize- this, though, just like it allows us to recognize anything.
"But yes, I actually agree with you that we might call existence God. Where we disagree is whether God/existence have a quality called "transcendence" and various other points.
***a further point is the discussion of the variety of consciousness "
How so?
I'll respond to the rest soon.
"****Plato used the same basis to declare that there must be a transcendental realm - in other words you can view virtually everything in this world as a temporary phenomena, even our own material conception of self, so he postulated that this world was a shadow or reflection of a more substantial or real existence."
Yes. I recall the Platonic argument from change to the changeless. The difference is that wheras Plato proposed the Platonic Heaven, wherin the Forms reside, I propose that no such distinction need to be drawn, and attributes of changelessness and eternity and certainty can be found on the macroscopic scales of existence as an absolute.
"***This is a faulty definition - for instance an imagined snake and a real snake have something in common - they are not binary opposites, and of course neither are they the same."
For one, an imagined and real snake are not opposite in any sense but "imagined v. real". Nothingness and somethingness are necessarily oppposite from one another. Indeed, they are the only oppositions that make ultimate sense, for they can be said to be absolutely so, and without a necessity of relativity to their opposition, with somethingness never being able to be "nothingness" compared to "other somethingness", whereas tall can be short when compared to something taller.
That is to say, I fail to see what points you have to show that somethingness and nothing are not binary, absolute opposites, of one another?
"****By logic one can know enough about god to apply the process of perceiving him - logic doesn't lead to direct perception - just like you can apply logic to the idea that there must be a civil manager in society (a king/president etc) because the public utilities are functioning etc etc - from that point one could apply a process to develop a personal relationship with the king once, or at the very least endeavour to collect information about his identity so one could apply ythe relevant process - in other words developing a relationship with a king doesn't even start as long as one is not sure whether the entity even exists or not"
Well it is a peculiar aspect of God/existence that one really does not need to establish a relationship with it, on the foundation that one is all ready apart of it. Existence implies oneself as well as God. God being the whole, oneself being one (of an ininite amount of) part (s). Also, he does not have qualities which would permit of relation in anyway but how one has a relationship with the ground one walks on. That is to say, as God is not a being, you might as well have a relationship with a rock.
"****In science they end their studies with god - in religion they begin with god - that is the only difference"
Since when does science ever touch upon God?
"**Assuming of course that our mind and intelligence is an unlimited phenomena"
It clearly is unlimited in necessary truths. It is certainly impossible to ever know every single empirical fact, though.
"***Not sure how that requires a seperate definition from creation ..."
There is a difference betwixt those who mold out of clay and those who make the clay appear before molding.
"****So some logic can lead to god and some logic cannot - just like some logic can lead to no distinction between a king and a prisioner and a more advanced logic does lead to a distinction."
No. Logic need only be followed to its end and we end up with truth. It is only the abuse of logic on contingent things without proper evaluation of those things which produces absurdity and error.
"****Logic can lead to the conviction that god exists - it arises from perceiving the symptoms of an orderly universe"
Order is one of the things that most unneeds a God. Order is the only logical possibility. Chaos in order to be chaos, would have to be incapable of being chaotic, by virtue that continued chaos is a species of order.
"****God is never wrong - unlike newton he doesn't make mistakes - increase doesn't necessarily imply rectifying error in all circumstances - like if you make 100$ and the next day make $1000 its not that the $100 was wrong, it was simply less "
If you increase, it implies a lack before. All increasing, in fact, shows a limitation of a prior state. Therefore, God was flawed in one way, he was lacking something which has increased, and therefore God is to be considered degraded if he ever had a prior existence as something less than that which he is now.
"****But you can not perceive whether spiritual bodies have form if you do not perceive the spiritual - just like a deep water fish has no experience of the medium of air, but that doesn't mean there is no such things as birds - in other words unless one has applied the appropriate epistemology to discern spiritual things that question cannot be answered by them."
If I take a fish out of the water, it experiences air. Where then is this transcendent realm, that we might not flop out of the ocean? And no, not simply training to "see things this way", but to see things objectively.
"***So I guess the first point is to establish whether there are eternal things in creation - and if those eternal things have no form, how did form (the material variety) develop from something that has no form?"
Well what is even a thing without a form? That seems like an insensible concept to begin with. Things have forms. To not have a form is not to be a thning. Unless you can show something which has no form yet exists.
But yes. If you have some evidence of that, go for it.
"****Whats is the substance of thought - are you implying the chemical quality of a "thought" (science cannot establish that thoughts are chemical to begin with) - how is this distinct from content?"
No. I was asking whether a transcendent thought is of transcent substance, a material thought of material substance. Or if both thoughts of transcendence and material are both transcendent in substance? I.E. What is a thought composed of?
"****The fan example still holds up since the dead insect cannot kick its legs forever - or alternatively The body is a machine and it requires consciousness to move - in this circumstance it would be the consciousness of the person prodding the dead insect that causes it to move "
It might just as likely have been a gust of wind that induced the reaction.
"****What exactly are the material things that produce consciousness - if a person with a leather glove hands you $100 did the glove give you $100 or the person?"
The glove is around an organic hand that is controlled by the entity that is created by that body. But what are material things that produce consciousness? Lifeforms.
"****Just like heat comes and goes from a fire - the source is constant but the symptoms may or may not be constant - so just as heat, whether greater or lesser is always a constant of fire, thoughts are always constantly happening as long as one is consciousness - just try and stop thinking for a moment to see if this statement is false"
Yet here you have a species of the ephmeral in the transcedent, that is, the capacity for transcendence to have something non-eternal about it, I.E. thoughts that come and go. Moreover, simply because the process of thought-to-thought may be perpetual, does not mean that the individual thoughts are. Just because every day is followed by another, does not mean that each day lasts forever. THat is to say, this seems to be a complete and utterly transcendent thing - thoughts - which come and go, have a genesis and a termination, and therefore is not eternal. If the transient can so exist in transcendence, does not the idea that "all transcendent things are eternal" come crashing down? For here we have something which is of wholly transcendent character but of extreme temporality.
Also, it is possible to still the thoughts, in two ways: 1. Sleep/unconsciousness. 2. Meditation. I have done both, though the second takes time and effort.
"In that the soul is eternal whereas the mind is temporary and based on individuated life?
***Yes"
So the real distinction is not betwixt body and mind, but body and soul?
"*** Then why if those conditions are materially reproduced without consciousness, consciousness does not take place?"
By definition such could not happen, unless casuality is an arbitrary process, which I'd argue is nonsense.
Do you have any proof of there ever being a constructed lifeform that somehow did not manifest conciousness by virtue of being alive and set and everything?
"****A ghost is a living entity without a body - in other words just a mind and intelligence - they don't have a material body to fulfill their desires so most ghosts are crazy and mostly "possess" persons (take over a person's mind intelligence, albeit temporarily) so they can fulfill a few desires - persons who commit suicide usually receive a ghosts body as sinful reaction for discarding their corporeal existence whimsically "
I cannot comment on this, as I have no idea about anything related to ghosts beyond ancedetal statements. I am not a parapsychologist of any reknown.
"*****So if one can perceive a will in the universe what does that indicate? The fact that the universe operates in certain ways and not in others (like the sun always appears in the east etc) indicates a will."
We human beings see many things in many things. Some human beings seen jesus Christ in potato chips, others the blessed virgin Mary in grilled-cheese sandwiches. That some people might affirm that there is a will in the universe is irrelevant. For one, they must prove that there is a will. Similarly, you must prove there is one, for how does the universe's operation imply a will? We have natural laws, not a consciousness, to account for how things react. Similarly, how do you perceive a will's action but for the acts of those things which are not caused by a will?
"*****Result is dependant on god just as sunshine is dependant on the sun - just like in a household where one person is earning all the money, if anyone buys a nything they buy it with his money "
Well let me ask you this: Which position do you take? That God and the law of result are one in the same thing - that is to say, that Law of Result is part of God as his omniscience or omnipresence is - or that God created the law of result?
"***God always exists and we have always existed - just like as long as a fire exists heat always exists - there is no chronological difference between the "appearance" of the fire and heat - the difference is that heat is caused by the fire - it is due to the fire's existence that the heat is in existence - without the fire there is no question of heat"
Yet it would stand to reason that if we were not what we are, then God would be rather like a cause without an effect, that is to say, non-existence. In Buddhism there is a concept of "co-dependent origination", which postulates that due to the necessary connection betwixt cause and effect, that one cannot speak of them divorced, and that in some ways, effect causes-cause. This seems to be the case here. For without what we are, God could not be.
What is fire without heat? Well, certainly not fire.
"****Black hole researchers may disagree "
Black holes do not annihilate space. They are not voids. They are in fact, ultimate expressions of space, in that they persist for trillions of years at such gravity that not even light can escape them.
"****consider the difference between having a 1 hour nap and having your hand held on a hot plate for 1 hour - both occurred in the same period but one is perceived to be excrutiating long and the other a mere moment - in other words the conscious perception of time is in "moments", and such varities of moments are not all equal even if of equal time slots"
Perception of time as flowing faster and slower from a subjective point of view does not entail the unfundamental nature of time, nor does it suggest even that time is relative, only that we can become distracted away from paying attention to time's passing in the same way. In essence, what you are saying here refutes nothing, specifically because even relative time, if it could never be divorced from existence, nor reduced to other things, would demonstrate its status as a fundamental.
"****Isn't relation a quality of consciousness, since it is consciousness which dtermines that bridge be found in a piece of wood"
No, in that physical properties are changed when put in different relations. That is to say, a bridge is not to be found in any plank of wood and therefore is something entirely different, namely an entity that is composed of that wood arranged in such a way, and it is that arrangement, which cannot be found in any individual plank, that is what gives it this whole new different physical property.
Consciousness certainly allows us to -recognize- this, though, just like it allows us to recognize anything.
"But yes, I actually agree with you that we might call existence God. Where we disagree is whether God/existence have a quality called "transcendence" and various other points.
***a further point is the discussion of the variety of consciousness "
How so?
I'll respond to the rest soon.
Prince_James: “But otherwise my conception of it was?……….”.
Re: Admittedly, the whole notion of dividing by ZERO is counterintuitive and a bit confusing. However, I’m, now, getting more and more convinced that the undefined (0/0) can be defined as (0/0 = 0). Can you find any fatal contradiction in this definition? Let me know! It’s true that the arithmetic rule of ‘every number divided by itself is equal to ONE)’ is violated, when (0/0) is defined as (0). But this is neither a fatal contradiction nor a blatant absurdity. Point out the absurdity, if you see it, please. That should, certainly, help me clear my mind of the against-mainstream view that (0/0 = 0)!
Prince_James: “…Well the idea of a plane excludes a third dimension. Assuming the third is a great leap, if only a different application. It also adds a great deal more complication to the system, via an entirely different axis to calculate things o, as well as corresponding principles………”.
Re: I would agree it’s a great leap, if our minds perceive the dimensions of space in ascending order, i.e. the one dimension, the two dimensions, and then the three dimensions. But we perceive them in descending order, i.e. the THREE dimensions first, then the TWO, and then the ONE. In a sense, the one dimension is subtler and more sophisticated, and requires more effort to perceive than either the two or the three spatial dimensions. And so the mental picture of space is a gestalt.
Prince_James: “…Yes. People often mistake determinism as implying that we are somehow not ourselves and not capable of being free in the sense that all things stem from us when we decide things, but this is clearly absurd. A cause by our own self makes us even more free in the sense that we are not constrained by a randomness of will which would be entailed by a truly free one, that is, something which would be caused by nothing”.
Re: I, certainly, agree with that. It should be clear, however, that there are two kinds of determinism. The first type of determinism is related to a finite number of causes operating on a finite number of objects in a finite extent of space and over a finite period of time. The second type of determinism is related to an infinite number of causes acting on an infinite number of objects in an infinite extent of space and over an infinite period of time. While it’s possible, in the former case, to predict future events with sufficient precision; it’s not possible at all, even in principle, to make accurate predictions in the latter case. In this sense, it can be said, with some justification, that infinity is the guarantor of freedom.
Last edited:
lightgigantic:
"*****Why not? It raises the question how such an antity could be god in the true sense if there are potencies greater than him - of course, as I seem to be saying quite a lot here, such a view is enetertined by taking one's own ontology as a yard stick for determining gods, which is fallacious"
If God can break casuality, he cannot cause something, for that cause requires causality itself. And what foundation could we even postulate that God has an ability to so warp reality?
"*****Well there is certainly no other example of an object with causeless or eternal qualities that can account for the vaiety of perceivable phenomena arrayed before us."
I would argue there is no example of any object which is causeless to begin with, only eternal. Eternal must still have a cause, even if it demands its eternity.
But anyway, if you know of something causeless, demonstrate this thing and show how it is to be construed as causeless?
"*****Except that we see that many things, in fact all things, have causes - this however doesn't address the origin of tempral things"
According to the theory you agreed to, we individual minds do not cause the conscious actions, but God meditates betwixt the mind and body to facilitate the casual connection in regards to our wishes. If such is the case, there is indeed cause, but the cause is utterly different than what we thought. But then if even the origin of the causes could be so obscured, how do we know that such a cause even truly exists?
David Hume pointed out that there is nothing inherent in any causal relationship which could not theoretically be considered to be simply an accident of occurrence. That there was nothing necessary in any interaction that demanded the end result. That casuality was a habit, not a fact. Whereas I disagree with this and have written my own refutation, I nevertheless ask you to demonstrate why casuality must be so in any situation, even when we know the apparent cause? For as Leibniz reminds us, though we may see a ball striking another ball and both go flying, how does one object give its properties over to another?
"*****Its obvious how consciousness is divorced from matter - it may not be obvious how matter emmanates from god, since as the cause of all causes there are very good reasons for him not being a commonly perceivable object "
It is not obvious at all. Conscious beings are only known to be material, and even supposed ghosts have electromagnetic properties which would make them material, if not amorphous. Similarly, it is only held commonly that the mind and body are distinct. Entire schools of thought - materialism and idealism - are devoted to the fact that only one of these essences are real.
"****Therefore our seperation from god is illusion (for us of course) and illusion is the precise facility offerred by dull matter for the living entity (again this opportunity for illusion is granted by god since he manifests the medium for illusion)"
No, our separation from God must assuredly be real in part. That is to say, it is clear we are separate beings, distinct from God, and that the universe is not united in our being, and even if all of existence is singular in nature and encapsulated as one thing, it still has internal parts, which are as important as the whole.
"*****The absolute cause is practical - if there is no water what will you drink- our necessities for living are provided not by industry or enterprise but by superior powers of management"
That is rather nonsensical, do not you think? For if we did not act ourselves, we would not be fed or given water. Indeed, if we did not make our lot greater, we'd live even on the level of beasts, or worse. But yes, we are somehow dependent on the natural world for our sustenance, but the world does not give, it only is, and we must take.
But as to what is the cause of water, it is very easy: The cause of water is its molecular structure.
"****And is that normal or abnormal behaviour?"
Necrophilia is abnormal in the sense that it is not a common practice amongst human beings.
"****Yet nobody has ever married one - they only are attractive because theygive an indication of the real thing"
It would be impossible to have a relationship with a statue. Although people have done sexual things to something similar (a doll for that purpose).
But yes, certainly statues of breasts and real breasts are different.
"****The dead bodies of trees - hence wooden houses owe their cause to consciousness since the wood was not manufactured and the builders were also conscious"
Growth is not a result of conscious action even if it comes from a conscious being (a tree). We do not will ourselves to grow, nor do trees do so. Moreover, relations exist outside of conscious interaction in manyways. All atomic structures are relational in nature. And if you want to go back to human examples, let's just replace "wood" with "stone". Stone is not conscious.
"*****So receiving $1000 becomes horrible after receiving $10 0000? The point about godis thathe never suffers loss or degradation -hence the amounts are always increasing"
It is less joyous for a man with 10,000 dollars than one who has 1 dollar.
Moreover, even if God is always increasing, it does not matter. His -past- states are less than the present. This implies -perpetual- lack if the process is perpetual. God becomes then the essence of limitation.
"****Anymore that the person who our mother calls husband is our father"
Which is so very often the case not the father of the child! Hence the Jewish laws regarding the mother being the source of Jewishness (as she knows for sure!).
But no, it is not even this certain. Whereas we can reasonably conclude our mother's husband is our father, specifically when she declares him such, and he acts such, we cannot know if God is the cause of anything, because he does not reveal himself, nor does he seem really capable of causing anything.
"****Actually we have no potency beyond the ability to desire, that is why whatever we have in the name of potency or assets can be lost in an instant - despite the desire (material desire) to lord it over material nature we are never properly situated on such a platform(although there is false confidence which may dictate otherwise)"
What about our capacity to put that desire into action? Surely we do not have an absolute power of doing so, but we have enough power to greatly impact our enviroment, and even if God is quite above this, we still do have power.
"*****Ithink I have lost the thread of this ..... Application or fullknowledge of what?"
Anything God teaches us.
"*****How could free willbe perfect if you didn't have the opportunity to make mistakes? I thinkI have already established before that god has more free will than us because he never operates out of a superior paradigm (ie conditioned life)"
Our free will can be quite perfect if God's free will is perfect without the capacity to make mistakes. You claim that he is perfect, makes no mistake, yet is free. Why can not have the same? You admit that free will is not categorically impossible to have with full perfection.
"****Depends on your level of illusion - for instance suppose in the terror of jumping from the rope snake you brushed against a rose thorn and then started moaning how you have only moments left to live since you were bitten by a poisonous snake ... this is effectively what people do in conditioned life under illusion - get all excited with the prospect of acquiring things that cause lamentation when they eventually leave"
The act still does not demonstrate an illusion's power to do anything actual. The key word he is illusionary. The man will not die from the rose thorn. Similarly, even if things are temporal like this, and do not have importance "in the scope of eternity", and can "cause myriad lamentations and rejoicings", we nonetheless exist in a very real world that does have real consequences to us in the present, if not eternally.
"*****Well he gives instruction through scripture - if you don't apply your free will to that, for whatever reason, who's fault is it? In otherwords is god's position in this world nothing more than a personal servant in our gardens of enjoyment?"
If God is perfect, yes. Yes indeed. For if he cannot accomplish his aims - to instruct us "through scripture" - then he cannot be perfect.
"*****that perfect creation exists in the spiritualworld -the alternative is what we have before us - the alternative is required for free will to exist"
You are contradicting yourself sorely here, Light Gigantic. You now claim that "the alternative is what we have before us - the alternative is required for free will to exist" yet then claim that God is free without that alternative! Clearly then, you are wrong.
"*****Temporarily one can situate oneself on that platform but because we have an enjoying spirit (part of god's quality) soon or later we will apply that enjoying spirit to either spirit or matter according to whether we are liberated or conditioned - repression accomplishes nothing - it is only by perceiving the higher quality of enjoyment of superior things that one is empowered to renounce inferiot things - repression accomplishes nothing - even if one has the most horrible experience from the pursuit of inferior enjoyment they will be forced to seek the same means by the enjoying nature - the classic example is sex life"
Why should we not enjoy matter and simply accept that the joys of matter - which I, for one, am willing to proclaim are a thousand times more valuable than any joys taken from the spiritual - also come with sorrows? It seems like a God. We can take the inferior spiritual route, which offers "joy" that entails annihilation but no suffering, or we can take the joy of the material world which also implies suffering.
What is higher about "the enjoyment of spiritual things"?
"*****But those physical foundationson which life is assumed to exist do not define life - ino therwords we weep bitterly when a person dies but in truth we never perceived "what" they essentially were"
HOw do they not define life? Brain functioning and heart beat is how we determine whether someone is alive or not! Similarly, when they cease, the consciousness which we interact with is gone. Poof. Like dust blown hither and yon by an errant wind.
"*****They are bogus teachings, or at best aimed at giving an introductory start to persons who are too grossly attached to material things - just like driving around at night time with no head lights is dangerous and the best advice is to simply say "Don't move anywhere" - but our nature dictates that we must move because the spirit soul is active nature - we cannotstop thought"
I must affirm the opposite. Not only can we stop thought, we can do so for extended periods. It takes practices and effort, but it can be done. I myself have accomplished it for minutes at a time. Others are said to have been able to do it for days. I have even found that the awareness of our senses even decreases, to the point where I went very temporarily blind. Moreover, my friend has been able to meditate so intently as to completley miss 8 hours of his life.
"*****And isn't there a sense of happiness in gettingsomething right and failure in getting something wrong - in otherwords isn't there an intrinsic quality of bliss behind truth - and even if the truth is unpleasant we tend to value it? "
We can indeed enjoy the truth. It is not a prerequisite, though. One could accimliate - though I see no reason oneself - to not finding any pleasure in anything, simply accepting it. A computer, for instance, could care less if it computes rightly or wrongly, whether it has attained truth or error.
"*****So just as a dreaming self is temporal so is the waking self temporal to the spirit self"
You must prove the spirit self. Present it to us? And if the spirit self only has manifestation in the identities of the normal self, is it really even a self?
"***Therefore the memory must be stored in a superior system than the one we tend to operate out of in daily life (the mind)"
Not necessarily. It must simply be that the mind can be damaged and repair, like a body can. That is to say, must we speak of a "superior building" if a door way crumbles in an Earthquake and until we clear the rubble and thus establish a new doorway, we cannot access the room obscured by the door way? Certainly not. So too with the mind. We simply replace/repair the pathways to the areas quartered off from us.
"****So what "door" are we operating out of while we have lost the key (unless there is a more subtle system we work out of than the mind and intelligence, since these are seen to fluctuate due to amnesia etc)"
The doors to aspects of our mind. Evidently, memories are stored in such a place as to be able to be blocked from retrieval. This requires no other subtle system.
"****While we are dreaming the waking self appears false and when we are awake the dreaming self appears false - its a paradox unless you accept a third party"
Actually, we rare evaluate the waking self. In fact, when we do, we realize what we are in is a dream, and either wake up or achieve a lucid state. This would imply a greater realism to the waking self. Similarly, it does not require a third party whatsoever even if what you said were true, on the foundation that any self one could be would feel more real than any other self one might be.
The mind is simply tricked in a dream into believing what is presented to it. We take on any new identity we might have due to the circumstances of the dream. This does not imply that we must be a spiritual entity, only that the mind may accept things. Moreover, one will note that one is still a mind in a dream, not a "spirit".
"***If it is an existence outside the parameters of the corporeal body, inclusing mind and intelligence, it sounds pretty transcendenta l to me"
So long as spiritual essence is not material. Which it well could be and indeed, the phenoma associated with ghosts seems to indicate. For how can it be a spirit - devoid of all matter - if it can make noises and footsteps and move things around, as ghosts are said to do? Or interact with electronics? But anyway, again, I am not a parapsychologist.
"***** Fevers and bed wetting affects the mind "
Precisely. A material thing impacting the mind, which impacts the dreaming. It therefore proves that dreaming have physical basis.
"***Imagination and the subtle body workson different principles than corporeal existence, hence it is distinct"
They are distinct in a relative sense, but in an absolute sense? Where would the mind be without the body that holds it?
"***So isn't this a third state outside of the previous two - dreaming and being awake - and doesn't this also imply a 4th state since there is the same consciousness going through all these three states?"
Not at all. We simply are not there when we are in a dreamless sleep or otherwise unconscious. That is to say, the mind itself slumbers then, to awaken to awareness again only when the mind is called upon.
"*****Admittedly identifying with the mind is a superior existence than identifying with the body, but its not a matter of identifying with the hands or feet but identifying with the situation of the body (Irish, male, young / old etc) that gives bodily identification - if you ask a person who they are they will give you information that pertains to thebody in over 99.9999% of circumstances - hence people do actually identify with the body more commonly"
In that one's identity is closely shaped by one's life conditions, this is natural. This does not imply that we view ourselves as the body, though. That is to say, the same as the body itself, and not as a consciousness which inhabits the body and which is the actions behind the body. But that our identities make up who we are mentally is certainly true and thus our life shapes us. But implied in all our identities is the sense of that mental being which primarily constitutes what we are, but that mental being -is- that being which is Irish, male, young, or whatever the case must be.
"****I am not familiar with this happening to people who are not senile or suffering from a similar impediment - in other words it doesn't illustrate normal beahviour"
People who are deprived of sleep display this behaviour, in that their bodies so demand sleep they can be doing something and the next minute wake up with no recollection of falling asleep, or even just continue on as if they didn't realize they were asleep at all. I have spoken to people on the phone, for instance, who were tired as hell, fell asleep, and which when I repeatedly went "hello?" or even started pressing numbers on the dial pad, they woke up with a start, unaware that they even fell asleep.
Generally, sleep comes gradually, so this does not occur. It also generally requires us to stop things in order to fall asleep.
"***but even without these things we can still recognise that a gap in our consciousness has taken place, otherwise it would be just like blinking our eyes if we didn't have access to this third state of consciousness"
We can recognize there was a gap in our consciousness only from the fact that we will feel startled into waking life again. We do not the awareness of the gap, nor even necessarily of its length. In fact, we certainly do not, as we have no perception whatsoever of the exact time we were out, nor do we remember the moment of falling asleep. In a totally white room, as I mentioned, we could not say whether we slept for a minute or 24 hours. That is to say, there is no third state of consciousness, only waking consciousness and dreaming consciousness, and really, the only difference betwixt the twain is one experiences waking life, the other dreaming life.
"*****The successful performance of sva sharma can lead to sanatana dharma but sanatana dharma is superior and can transgress the former - the same cannot be said of sva dharma - in otherwords sva dharma is not evidence of the perfection of spiritual life"
So therefore one can be a good material person, but not be good spiritually?
"***Yes - this is why one requires expert guidance in the performance of religious principles rather than just taking a scripture and trying to make sense of it"
If a law of society is different from the law of spirit, should we then follow this law of spirit?
"*****Which is why non violence is catergorised as apadharma - or a nearness to dharma - other apadharmas are benevolence, self control etc etc - actual dharma is surrender to god - this is the only activity that saves one from the paradox of result - or the continuing cycle of birth and death in the material world due to previous activities - hence a person does not achieve moksha by apadharma but by sanatana dharma"
How does this save one? Is it even possible to surrender to God, in that we must act, no matter what? Moreover, why is it even a valuable thing? For in the end, we die if we take this route! We have eternal life in reincarnation, but eternal death if we seek annihilation!
"*****If theer are varieties of whimsy there are varieties of application - for instance when the USA abolished liquor in the 1920's in simply went underground and supported the mafia so it was re-introduced - in other words if people are so sold out to bad habits socialmanagement bodies regulate it since banning it does not deliver desirable results"
Yet a spiritual belief must be unified and concise over all boundaries, lest it is not true. To say that it is okay to follow such and such a religion, and such and such rules, "on one level", demands that this level is false, and in fact, the entire system demands falsehood. In either case, no truth can be found in it.
"*****But concomitant factors of material enjoyment is material suffering - a person who is akincina,or finished with the business of tryiongto squeeze out some sort of pleasure from material life is properly qualified to perform spiritual life"
Better to reign in Hell than to rule in Heaven, if in Hell one has joy along with suffering, and in Heaven only nothing.
"*****Short term enjoyment is the enjoyment of the less intelligent"
Not particularly. One can ask what is the use of benefit if not to be used? Even long-term benefit wants to eventually be used and cannot persist, so is it not taste? One could say that one great big celebration is better than many celebrations over a long time. Some people are of this character.
"***My point is that as long as they perceive a rope as a snake no amount of close inspection will reveal anything - it requires a break out of illusory consciousness to directly perceive the truth - in conditioned life we are effectively running away from teh rope despite claims of authority that it is only a rope - "
It is only through the improper evaluation of an object that we are deluded. We require no authority to say "I shall make sure to know everything and not assume" and then to carry that out and figure out what is real and what is not. A rope, if it is a rope, can be found out to be a rope. Authorities could help us, but even they can only point the way, as we must do the realization. Authorities then are at best superfluous, but alsp helpful and practical at times.
"***Only if the eatables are provided from god for you to buy - money tastes horrible and doesn't have much nutritional value"
Provided from God? No. Provided from men. From farmers, from butchers. And if they have no food, it is simply nature that has done so, not God. God provides nothing. If anything, existence is proof that God does not care, for it is completely apathetic to our well being and happiness. Rivers of milk and honey do not spring at our feet.
"*****God also gives us intelligence, as well as camels and eatables - is it faithlessness to properly use things in the way that are meant?"
Yes. For none of them rely on God and if we did rely only on God, we'd die. In fact, to rely on God for even a single thing is impossible, for even we must breath.
"****No because the spiritual spark is not perceived by a person infatutaed by the bodily conscpet of life anymore than a person can see the driver of a car on a dark stormy night that fogs up the windscreen"
If the person has the knowledge of spiritual sparks, he can certainly perceive it, even if he wants to have sex with that creature which has that spark. In fact, recognition of a spiritual aspect to anything does not make it beyond the capacity to lust after, and indeed, could even be something we want.
"****But this process of not wearing any glasses is given by purification - the perfection of religion is to perceive the self with direct perecption (raja vidyam raja guhyam pavitram idam uttamam -bhagavad gita)"
In what way does this accomplish "direct perception of the self"? And if religion does this, as you claim, good, for then religion has incorporated philosophy. It is philosophical awareness that allows us any such things.
"*****religion pertains to god - god pertains to the absolute truth - the absolute truth contains all relative truths - inotherwords all other prevalued systems can be accommodated by religion but the same cannot be said of other prevalued systems"
The problem is that religion assumes before it investigates. Unless vindicated by philosophy, religion's claims are just like wearing any other glasses. Moreover, religion can even be so constructed as to rig the results in its favour. For instance, consider the common saying that God answers all prayers. Well clearly he does not! But the response is: Well he can say no! So then the concept becomes meaningless, because one can say God answers yes sometimes, no other times, or in essence, prayer is not all certain. These types of delusions infect the minds of the holders and are not just accidental to religion, but in fact it is true that all all religious paradigms inspire one to view things in light of their doctrines and hence produce such things as above. Instead of viewing things objectively, we resort back to the text, telling us how we should view things. How should we know whether we should view things that way? We do not! Therefore we must investigate before we can, and thus we cannot trust religion until philosophy vindicates it, which in turn, means we cannot really trust religion at all, just philosophy.
"***Just like one can see the sun and also other objects when the sun rises, with theperception of god, god becomes apparaent along with other objects -"
Yet if you must accept certain things as "being of God" without justification, then one is simply deluding oneself.
I shall respond to the other things later.
"*****Why not? It raises the question how such an antity could be god in the true sense if there are potencies greater than him - of course, as I seem to be saying quite a lot here, such a view is enetertined by taking one's own ontology as a yard stick for determining gods, which is fallacious"
If God can break casuality, he cannot cause something, for that cause requires causality itself. And what foundation could we even postulate that God has an ability to so warp reality?
"*****Well there is certainly no other example of an object with causeless or eternal qualities that can account for the vaiety of perceivable phenomena arrayed before us."
I would argue there is no example of any object which is causeless to begin with, only eternal. Eternal must still have a cause, even if it demands its eternity.
But anyway, if you know of something causeless, demonstrate this thing and show how it is to be construed as causeless?
"*****Except that we see that many things, in fact all things, have causes - this however doesn't address the origin of tempral things"
According to the theory you agreed to, we individual minds do not cause the conscious actions, but God meditates betwixt the mind and body to facilitate the casual connection in regards to our wishes. If such is the case, there is indeed cause, but the cause is utterly different than what we thought. But then if even the origin of the causes could be so obscured, how do we know that such a cause even truly exists?
David Hume pointed out that there is nothing inherent in any causal relationship which could not theoretically be considered to be simply an accident of occurrence. That there was nothing necessary in any interaction that demanded the end result. That casuality was a habit, not a fact. Whereas I disagree with this and have written my own refutation, I nevertheless ask you to demonstrate why casuality must be so in any situation, even when we know the apparent cause? For as Leibniz reminds us, though we may see a ball striking another ball and both go flying, how does one object give its properties over to another?
"*****Its obvious how consciousness is divorced from matter - it may not be obvious how matter emmanates from god, since as the cause of all causes there are very good reasons for him not being a commonly perceivable object "
It is not obvious at all. Conscious beings are only known to be material, and even supposed ghosts have electromagnetic properties which would make them material, if not amorphous. Similarly, it is only held commonly that the mind and body are distinct. Entire schools of thought - materialism and idealism - are devoted to the fact that only one of these essences are real.
"****Therefore our seperation from god is illusion (for us of course) and illusion is the precise facility offerred by dull matter for the living entity (again this opportunity for illusion is granted by god since he manifests the medium for illusion)"
No, our separation from God must assuredly be real in part. That is to say, it is clear we are separate beings, distinct from God, and that the universe is not united in our being, and even if all of existence is singular in nature and encapsulated as one thing, it still has internal parts, which are as important as the whole.
"*****The absolute cause is practical - if there is no water what will you drink- our necessities for living are provided not by industry or enterprise but by superior powers of management"
That is rather nonsensical, do not you think? For if we did not act ourselves, we would not be fed or given water. Indeed, if we did not make our lot greater, we'd live even on the level of beasts, or worse. But yes, we are somehow dependent on the natural world for our sustenance, but the world does not give, it only is, and we must take.
But as to what is the cause of water, it is very easy: The cause of water is its molecular structure.
"****And is that normal or abnormal behaviour?"
Necrophilia is abnormal in the sense that it is not a common practice amongst human beings.
"****Yet nobody has ever married one - they only are attractive because theygive an indication of the real thing"
It would be impossible to have a relationship with a statue. Although people have done sexual things to something similar (a doll for that purpose).
But yes, certainly statues of breasts and real breasts are different.
"****The dead bodies of trees - hence wooden houses owe their cause to consciousness since the wood was not manufactured and the builders were also conscious"
Growth is not a result of conscious action even if it comes from a conscious being (a tree). We do not will ourselves to grow, nor do trees do so. Moreover, relations exist outside of conscious interaction in manyways. All atomic structures are relational in nature. And if you want to go back to human examples, let's just replace "wood" with "stone". Stone is not conscious.
"*****So receiving $1000 becomes horrible after receiving $10 0000? The point about godis thathe never suffers loss or degradation -hence the amounts are always increasing"
It is less joyous for a man with 10,000 dollars than one who has 1 dollar.
Moreover, even if God is always increasing, it does not matter. His -past- states are less than the present. This implies -perpetual- lack if the process is perpetual. God becomes then the essence of limitation.
"****Anymore that the person who our mother calls husband is our father"
Which is so very often the case not the father of the child! Hence the Jewish laws regarding the mother being the source of Jewishness (as she knows for sure!).
But no, it is not even this certain. Whereas we can reasonably conclude our mother's husband is our father, specifically when she declares him such, and he acts such, we cannot know if God is the cause of anything, because he does not reveal himself, nor does he seem really capable of causing anything.
"****Actually we have no potency beyond the ability to desire, that is why whatever we have in the name of potency or assets can be lost in an instant - despite the desire (material desire) to lord it over material nature we are never properly situated on such a platform(although there is false confidence which may dictate otherwise)"
What about our capacity to put that desire into action? Surely we do not have an absolute power of doing so, but we have enough power to greatly impact our enviroment, and even if God is quite above this, we still do have power.
"*****Ithink I have lost the thread of this ..... Application or fullknowledge of what?"
Anything God teaches us.
"*****How could free willbe perfect if you didn't have the opportunity to make mistakes? I thinkI have already established before that god has more free will than us because he never operates out of a superior paradigm (ie conditioned life)"
Our free will can be quite perfect if God's free will is perfect without the capacity to make mistakes. You claim that he is perfect, makes no mistake, yet is free. Why can not have the same? You admit that free will is not categorically impossible to have with full perfection.
"****Depends on your level of illusion - for instance suppose in the terror of jumping from the rope snake you brushed against a rose thorn and then started moaning how you have only moments left to live since you were bitten by a poisonous snake ... this is effectively what people do in conditioned life under illusion - get all excited with the prospect of acquiring things that cause lamentation when they eventually leave"
The act still does not demonstrate an illusion's power to do anything actual. The key word he is illusionary. The man will not die from the rose thorn. Similarly, even if things are temporal like this, and do not have importance "in the scope of eternity", and can "cause myriad lamentations and rejoicings", we nonetheless exist in a very real world that does have real consequences to us in the present, if not eternally.
"*****Well he gives instruction through scripture - if you don't apply your free will to that, for whatever reason, who's fault is it? In otherwords is god's position in this world nothing more than a personal servant in our gardens of enjoyment?"
If God is perfect, yes. Yes indeed. For if he cannot accomplish his aims - to instruct us "through scripture" - then he cannot be perfect.
"*****that perfect creation exists in the spiritualworld -the alternative is what we have before us - the alternative is required for free will to exist"
You are contradicting yourself sorely here, Light Gigantic. You now claim that "the alternative is what we have before us - the alternative is required for free will to exist" yet then claim that God is free without that alternative! Clearly then, you are wrong.
"*****Temporarily one can situate oneself on that platform but because we have an enjoying spirit (part of god's quality) soon or later we will apply that enjoying spirit to either spirit or matter according to whether we are liberated or conditioned - repression accomplishes nothing - it is only by perceiving the higher quality of enjoyment of superior things that one is empowered to renounce inferiot things - repression accomplishes nothing - even if one has the most horrible experience from the pursuit of inferior enjoyment they will be forced to seek the same means by the enjoying nature - the classic example is sex life"
Why should we not enjoy matter and simply accept that the joys of matter - which I, for one, am willing to proclaim are a thousand times more valuable than any joys taken from the spiritual - also come with sorrows? It seems like a God. We can take the inferior spiritual route, which offers "joy" that entails annihilation but no suffering, or we can take the joy of the material world which also implies suffering.
What is higher about "the enjoyment of spiritual things"?
"*****But those physical foundationson which life is assumed to exist do not define life - ino therwords we weep bitterly when a person dies but in truth we never perceived "what" they essentially were"
HOw do they not define life? Brain functioning and heart beat is how we determine whether someone is alive or not! Similarly, when they cease, the consciousness which we interact with is gone. Poof. Like dust blown hither and yon by an errant wind.
"*****They are bogus teachings, or at best aimed at giving an introductory start to persons who are too grossly attached to material things - just like driving around at night time with no head lights is dangerous and the best advice is to simply say "Don't move anywhere" - but our nature dictates that we must move because the spirit soul is active nature - we cannotstop thought"
I must affirm the opposite. Not only can we stop thought, we can do so for extended periods. It takes practices and effort, but it can be done. I myself have accomplished it for minutes at a time. Others are said to have been able to do it for days. I have even found that the awareness of our senses even decreases, to the point where I went very temporarily blind. Moreover, my friend has been able to meditate so intently as to completley miss 8 hours of his life.
"*****And isn't there a sense of happiness in gettingsomething right and failure in getting something wrong - in otherwords isn't there an intrinsic quality of bliss behind truth - and even if the truth is unpleasant we tend to value it? "
We can indeed enjoy the truth. It is not a prerequisite, though. One could accimliate - though I see no reason oneself - to not finding any pleasure in anything, simply accepting it. A computer, for instance, could care less if it computes rightly or wrongly, whether it has attained truth or error.
"*****So just as a dreaming self is temporal so is the waking self temporal to the spirit self"
You must prove the spirit self. Present it to us? And if the spirit self only has manifestation in the identities of the normal self, is it really even a self?
"***Therefore the memory must be stored in a superior system than the one we tend to operate out of in daily life (the mind)"
Not necessarily. It must simply be that the mind can be damaged and repair, like a body can. That is to say, must we speak of a "superior building" if a door way crumbles in an Earthquake and until we clear the rubble and thus establish a new doorway, we cannot access the room obscured by the door way? Certainly not. So too with the mind. We simply replace/repair the pathways to the areas quartered off from us.
"****So what "door" are we operating out of while we have lost the key (unless there is a more subtle system we work out of than the mind and intelligence, since these are seen to fluctuate due to amnesia etc)"
The doors to aspects of our mind. Evidently, memories are stored in such a place as to be able to be blocked from retrieval. This requires no other subtle system.
"****While we are dreaming the waking self appears false and when we are awake the dreaming self appears false - its a paradox unless you accept a third party"
Actually, we rare evaluate the waking self. In fact, when we do, we realize what we are in is a dream, and either wake up or achieve a lucid state. This would imply a greater realism to the waking self. Similarly, it does not require a third party whatsoever even if what you said were true, on the foundation that any self one could be would feel more real than any other self one might be.
The mind is simply tricked in a dream into believing what is presented to it. We take on any new identity we might have due to the circumstances of the dream. This does not imply that we must be a spiritual entity, only that the mind may accept things. Moreover, one will note that one is still a mind in a dream, not a "spirit".
"***If it is an existence outside the parameters of the corporeal body, inclusing mind and intelligence, it sounds pretty transcendenta l to me"
So long as spiritual essence is not material. Which it well could be and indeed, the phenoma associated with ghosts seems to indicate. For how can it be a spirit - devoid of all matter - if it can make noises and footsteps and move things around, as ghosts are said to do? Or interact with electronics? But anyway, again, I am not a parapsychologist.
"***** Fevers and bed wetting affects the mind "
Precisely. A material thing impacting the mind, which impacts the dreaming. It therefore proves that dreaming have physical basis.
"***Imagination and the subtle body workson different principles than corporeal existence, hence it is distinct"
They are distinct in a relative sense, but in an absolute sense? Where would the mind be without the body that holds it?
"***So isn't this a third state outside of the previous two - dreaming and being awake - and doesn't this also imply a 4th state since there is the same consciousness going through all these three states?"
Not at all. We simply are not there when we are in a dreamless sleep or otherwise unconscious. That is to say, the mind itself slumbers then, to awaken to awareness again only when the mind is called upon.
"*****Admittedly identifying with the mind is a superior existence than identifying with the body, but its not a matter of identifying with the hands or feet but identifying with the situation of the body (Irish, male, young / old etc) that gives bodily identification - if you ask a person who they are they will give you information that pertains to thebody in over 99.9999% of circumstances - hence people do actually identify with the body more commonly"
In that one's identity is closely shaped by one's life conditions, this is natural. This does not imply that we view ourselves as the body, though. That is to say, the same as the body itself, and not as a consciousness which inhabits the body and which is the actions behind the body. But that our identities make up who we are mentally is certainly true and thus our life shapes us. But implied in all our identities is the sense of that mental being which primarily constitutes what we are, but that mental being -is- that being which is Irish, male, young, or whatever the case must be.
"****I am not familiar with this happening to people who are not senile or suffering from a similar impediment - in other words it doesn't illustrate normal beahviour"
People who are deprived of sleep display this behaviour, in that their bodies so demand sleep they can be doing something and the next minute wake up with no recollection of falling asleep, or even just continue on as if they didn't realize they were asleep at all. I have spoken to people on the phone, for instance, who were tired as hell, fell asleep, and which when I repeatedly went "hello?" or even started pressing numbers on the dial pad, they woke up with a start, unaware that they even fell asleep.
Generally, sleep comes gradually, so this does not occur. It also generally requires us to stop things in order to fall asleep.
"***but even without these things we can still recognise that a gap in our consciousness has taken place, otherwise it would be just like blinking our eyes if we didn't have access to this third state of consciousness"
We can recognize there was a gap in our consciousness only from the fact that we will feel startled into waking life again. We do not the awareness of the gap, nor even necessarily of its length. In fact, we certainly do not, as we have no perception whatsoever of the exact time we were out, nor do we remember the moment of falling asleep. In a totally white room, as I mentioned, we could not say whether we slept for a minute or 24 hours. That is to say, there is no third state of consciousness, only waking consciousness and dreaming consciousness, and really, the only difference betwixt the twain is one experiences waking life, the other dreaming life.
"*****The successful performance of sva sharma can lead to sanatana dharma but sanatana dharma is superior and can transgress the former - the same cannot be said of sva dharma - in otherwords sva dharma is not evidence of the perfection of spiritual life"
So therefore one can be a good material person, but not be good spiritually?
"***Yes - this is why one requires expert guidance in the performance of religious principles rather than just taking a scripture and trying to make sense of it"
If a law of society is different from the law of spirit, should we then follow this law of spirit?
"*****Which is why non violence is catergorised as apadharma - or a nearness to dharma - other apadharmas are benevolence, self control etc etc - actual dharma is surrender to god - this is the only activity that saves one from the paradox of result - or the continuing cycle of birth and death in the material world due to previous activities - hence a person does not achieve moksha by apadharma but by sanatana dharma"
How does this save one? Is it even possible to surrender to God, in that we must act, no matter what? Moreover, why is it even a valuable thing? For in the end, we die if we take this route! We have eternal life in reincarnation, but eternal death if we seek annihilation!
"*****If theer are varieties of whimsy there are varieties of application - for instance when the USA abolished liquor in the 1920's in simply went underground and supported the mafia so it was re-introduced - in other words if people are so sold out to bad habits socialmanagement bodies regulate it since banning it does not deliver desirable results"
Yet a spiritual belief must be unified and concise over all boundaries, lest it is not true. To say that it is okay to follow such and such a religion, and such and such rules, "on one level", demands that this level is false, and in fact, the entire system demands falsehood. In either case, no truth can be found in it.
"*****But concomitant factors of material enjoyment is material suffering - a person who is akincina,or finished with the business of tryiongto squeeze out some sort of pleasure from material life is properly qualified to perform spiritual life"
Better to reign in Hell than to rule in Heaven, if in Hell one has joy along with suffering, and in Heaven only nothing.
"*****Short term enjoyment is the enjoyment of the less intelligent"
Not particularly. One can ask what is the use of benefit if not to be used? Even long-term benefit wants to eventually be used and cannot persist, so is it not taste? One could say that one great big celebration is better than many celebrations over a long time. Some people are of this character.
"***My point is that as long as they perceive a rope as a snake no amount of close inspection will reveal anything - it requires a break out of illusory consciousness to directly perceive the truth - in conditioned life we are effectively running away from teh rope despite claims of authority that it is only a rope - "
It is only through the improper evaluation of an object that we are deluded. We require no authority to say "I shall make sure to know everything and not assume" and then to carry that out and figure out what is real and what is not. A rope, if it is a rope, can be found out to be a rope. Authorities could help us, but even they can only point the way, as we must do the realization. Authorities then are at best superfluous, but alsp helpful and practical at times.
"***Only if the eatables are provided from god for you to buy - money tastes horrible and doesn't have much nutritional value"
Provided from God? No. Provided from men. From farmers, from butchers. And if they have no food, it is simply nature that has done so, not God. God provides nothing. If anything, existence is proof that God does not care, for it is completely apathetic to our well being and happiness. Rivers of milk and honey do not spring at our feet.
"*****God also gives us intelligence, as well as camels and eatables - is it faithlessness to properly use things in the way that are meant?"
Yes. For none of them rely on God and if we did rely only on God, we'd die. In fact, to rely on God for even a single thing is impossible, for even we must breath.
"****No because the spiritual spark is not perceived by a person infatutaed by the bodily conscpet of life anymore than a person can see the driver of a car on a dark stormy night that fogs up the windscreen"
If the person has the knowledge of spiritual sparks, he can certainly perceive it, even if he wants to have sex with that creature which has that spark. In fact, recognition of a spiritual aspect to anything does not make it beyond the capacity to lust after, and indeed, could even be something we want.
"****But this process of not wearing any glasses is given by purification - the perfection of religion is to perceive the self with direct perecption (raja vidyam raja guhyam pavitram idam uttamam -bhagavad gita)"
In what way does this accomplish "direct perception of the self"? And if religion does this, as you claim, good, for then religion has incorporated philosophy. It is philosophical awareness that allows us any such things.
"*****religion pertains to god - god pertains to the absolute truth - the absolute truth contains all relative truths - inotherwords all other prevalued systems can be accommodated by religion but the same cannot be said of other prevalued systems"
The problem is that religion assumes before it investigates. Unless vindicated by philosophy, religion's claims are just like wearing any other glasses. Moreover, religion can even be so constructed as to rig the results in its favour. For instance, consider the common saying that God answers all prayers. Well clearly he does not! But the response is: Well he can say no! So then the concept becomes meaningless, because one can say God answers yes sometimes, no other times, or in essence, prayer is not all certain. These types of delusions infect the minds of the holders and are not just accidental to religion, but in fact it is true that all all religious paradigms inspire one to view things in light of their doctrines and hence produce such things as above. Instead of viewing things objectively, we resort back to the text, telling us how we should view things. How should we know whether we should view things that way? We do not! Therefore we must investigate before we can, and thus we cannot trust religion until philosophy vindicates it, which in turn, means we cannot really trust religion at all, just philosophy.
"***Just like one can see the sun and also other objects when the sun rises, with theperception of god, god becomes apparaent along with other objects -"
Yet if you must accept certain things as "being of God" without justification, then one is simply deluding oneself.
I shall respond to the other things later.
- Status