lightgigantic:
"*****We perceive death as infallible then, which is a potency of god"
No. We view death as present. Whether or not death is infallible is a wholly different thing. Not all which is alive must necessarily die. We simply know of nothing which is alive which is not suspectible to death. Moreover, even if death is infallible, this does not mean that it is God, only that it is a natural law.
"Observing. But are you claiming to experience God as one might experience fire?
****Yes"
How? And how can you verify that is so?
"*****Then we never know anything by this definition since 99.99% of knowledge is not directly perceivable to us"
Outside of logical/philosophical truths are the only things we can be -one hundred percent certain- that we know. That being said, we can know with the same certainty that things directly known to us through the senses, even if we might have a wrong idea as to what we are. For instance, though we may hallucinate a bat coming at us, the bat's image was real enough to say "we saw a bat", just that we ascribe an improper reality to said bat. But yes, as there an infinite amount of empirical things, ranging from the infinitely small to the infinitely large, and everything in between, we cannot even scrape the surface of the truths contained in the empirical world. That being said, we can indeed use the logical/philosophical truths to actually figure many of these things out. Moreover, we can apply what we do know, analyze it, and then come to truth.
"*****By following authority one can get the same direct perception as they do - that is the epistemology, whether religious or otherwise"
Only if that authority leads one to that perception. Scientists will usually show you the experiment themselves if they can and yes, I imagine some religious people do the same, although it is always curious that religion requires acceptance of beliefs before validation in order to "work".
"*****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"
Actually, the idea that a bee cannot fly because it violates laws of aerodynamics is an urban legend. Bee-flight is actually -very- well understood and it is only the misapplication of principles of fixed-wing aircraft that give rise to the erroneous conception that we cannot know how a bee flies. Bees are more akin to rotary-winged vehicles, such as helicopters, and through such a thing, we can know -certainly- what method they fly. In fact, we do.
Moreover, as I noted, yes, they are still be investigated for a full scope of knowledge, but we all ready know a great deal about such things. That is to say, we have many fields of expertise where things are known and which, though still expanding, are yet still going on. Also, we have somethings which we know fully. Chess, for instance, is known fully, in the sense that we have created the system entirely. Euclidean geometry for a less trivial example, also, is a complete system.
"***therefore there are experts in the field of religion (and admittedly quacks as well)"
It depends. Can religion be empirically or philosophically verified? IF so, there are experts. If not, and it requires notions of acceptance before validation, then no, there is no such thing as a religious expert.
"***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 "
It depends. Causality demands that similar things produce similar ends. But yes, we cannot simply extrapollate without testing on empirical matters in most cases. But if the substance is the same, we can say that no, it is not going to randomly turn into anti-matter, or some such nonsense.
"***Such direct perceptions are not automatically authoritative - see above"
Are you denying that empirical observation produces knowledge of the world, specifically to the rigour of the scientific method? And if not, how do you propose we get empirical knowledge of the world more certainly?
"****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 long as the experiences are coated in the view of the religion. If one thought that everytime a cloud is in the sky, God is doing x and y things, one could then view clouds in that light. Similarly, one can characterize any experience as "self-realization", as one will adopt certain viewpoints to support it.
"***thereforeconsciousness deserves a special classification beyond the mere classification of the material elements that it is seen to inhabit"
No more than any other relation which can be destroyed, like the repeatedly mentioned bridge. But no one is here claiming that consciousness isn't important, only that it is a relational entity, which like any other thing, can cease to be.
"*** 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)"
How does one even prove that we have such an eternal spirit? Moreover, what makes it "illusory"? Things come and go, what of it? The transience is real and their existence is real for the time they exist. It is not unnatural, for we too shall one day cease to be. We simply do not want to cease to be, which is quite natural when one realizes what it entails!
"****They seem important only due to illusion, just as a rope appears dangerous due to the perception of it being a snake"
Spiritual principles are only important because of illusion it can be said, too. What is objectively better? To not suffer and not to feel pleasure, or to feel pleasure and not to suffer? It seems utterly up to taste! Frankly, I prefer life myself, and rather suffer alongside pleasure, then to be annihilated!
The importance of every day things are just as real as anything else, because they do impact our pleasure and pain. Simply because these are temporary states does not mean a single thing.
"***You can test it by buying soemthing"
Yet you cannot buy something if even the shop keep himself does not know the value, or if the value of what one buys is unknown! Sure you can make an imaginary exchange, but you are still far from truth, as one has no real knowledge of it.
"****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"
Which you have failed to demonstrate can come from religion. Philosophy, on the other hand, has its result in such direct perception and understanding. We can find truth through philosophy, religion can colour anything with what it wants.
"***religion offers results not to be found in any other system"
And what results are these?
""***Thats the point- lust anger etc indicates dishonesty""
So does religious faith, which requires just the same distortion.
"***The paradigm of the truth (absence of lust etc), hence it is superior"
It substitutes the paradigm of lust for the paradigm of religion, not of objectivity. It is thus perhaps only a lesser evil, a lesser delusion.
"***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)"
Proper perception does indeed need self-control, yes, but it also needs an openness to objectivity, not something colouring experience through religion.
"*****Does this clarify the above three responses?"
Yes, but we disagree as to whether religion = good = objectivity. I will agree that objectivity is the only way to be good, 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 like excrement? It is just another physical substance. I can make no claim for its superiority over the flesh of animals, which I eat and enjoy immensely.
"***Superior consciousness grants the ability to discern values - compare your football hooligan to your university professor"
There are such things as taste. A football hooligan likes football. A university professor likes professoring. In so much as a university professor may be more inclined towards the truth, he is superior on that level, but there are football hooligan philosophers, which are quite fine. That is to say, one can be a football hooligan and be Socrates II. These tastes are not objective.
"***So why insist on proving god by an epistemology that doesn't even prove our own existence?"
The epistemology is fine. That we have a controversy is mainly because of your claims, which have not been fully substantiated as of yet, are being made. What we must use is objective truth-seeking means to achieve ends of truth. We have found those in philosophical/logical reasoning and empirical observation under rigorous vigilance.
But no, this epistemology does not rule out that you are right, only that you haven't put forth such evidence as of yet to prove this and there is evidence to suggest you are not. Similary, adopting "another epistemology", to "prove God by it", only changes the rules to rig the game. Of course we could prove God, if we make wild assertions and state those as axioms. If this is not so, what would you have us use epistemologically?
"****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"
Might I be able to find his books in major bookstores such as Barnes and Nobles, Borders, et cetera? Because I am actually going to be going to a bookstore soon to get some books and I might well take your advice and read his works.
"***Its interesting that the objectivity of perception is seen (by some) tobe the new cutting edge of science
http://www.vtweb.com/gosai/science/...in-science.html"
Some scientists are of that opinion, yes, but the majority are not, and with much more evidence on their side.
However, I must telll you that this website is notoriously unscientific, as I have been to it before and have found more than a bit of assertion and little verification, experimentally or even thought-experimentally. It is also not recognized by any leading scientific authorities, nor do I know of any papers in any peer-reviewed journals authored by people of the society and which are widely considered to hold even a pretense to the capacity for truth. That is to say, it needs a lot more verification, and I am also skeptical of anything that comes out of Indian-connected religion, on the foundation that India's current scientific knowledge is not world reknown, and many of its newspapers and other such things, make wildly inaccurate claims about science.
Not to downgrade, by the way, Indian religion as a whole, but simply to point out that Indian religion is not a vast reservoir of scientific knowledge, mind you.
"***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) "
Science is dealing with an infinite system (the empirical world) that is characterized by greater revealing through sharper measurement and instrumentation. That one can never reach the infinitely small demands that even an atom be made up of other things, and those things made of other things, and those things made of other things, et cetera, et cetera. Science, however, has quite well dealt with much of the macroscopic world and continues to deal with all sorts of issues. But yes, almost all instances where revision has been made, was in the improper evaluation by using outdated methods (pre-scientific method) or through the results being put into a larger theory. General and Special Relativity, for instance, do not so much destroy classical physics, as they point out where classical physics lacks, and where classical physics ought to be placed in a wider system. Newton's laws govern the large-scale world pretty much utterly.
"*****We perceive death as infallible then, which is a potency of god"
No. We view death as present. Whether or not death is infallible is a wholly different thing. Not all which is alive must necessarily die. We simply know of nothing which is alive which is not suspectible to death. Moreover, even if death is infallible, this does not mean that it is God, only that it is a natural law.
"Observing. But are you claiming to experience God as one might experience fire?
****Yes"
How? And how can you verify that is so?
"*****Then we never know anything by this definition since 99.99% of knowledge is not directly perceivable to us"
Outside of logical/philosophical truths are the only things we can be -one hundred percent certain- that we know. That being said, we can know with the same certainty that things directly known to us through the senses, even if we might have a wrong idea as to what we are. For instance, though we may hallucinate a bat coming at us, the bat's image was real enough to say "we saw a bat", just that we ascribe an improper reality to said bat. But yes, as there an infinite amount of empirical things, ranging from the infinitely small to the infinitely large, and everything in between, we cannot even scrape the surface of the truths contained in the empirical world. That being said, we can indeed use the logical/philosophical truths to actually figure many of these things out. Moreover, we can apply what we do know, analyze it, and then come to truth.
"*****By following authority one can get the same direct perception as they do - that is the epistemology, whether religious or otherwise"
Only if that authority leads one to that perception. Scientists will usually show you the experiment themselves if they can and yes, I imagine some religious people do the same, although it is always curious that religion requires acceptance of beliefs before validation in order to "work".
"*****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"
Actually, the idea that a bee cannot fly because it violates laws of aerodynamics is an urban legend. Bee-flight is actually -very- well understood and it is only the misapplication of principles of fixed-wing aircraft that give rise to the erroneous conception that we cannot know how a bee flies. Bees are more akin to rotary-winged vehicles, such as helicopters, and through such a thing, we can know -certainly- what method they fly. In fact, we do.
Moreover, as I noted, yes, they are still be investigated for a full scope of knowledge, but we all ready know a great deal about such things. That is to say, we have many fields of expertise where things are known and which, though still expanding, are yet still going on. Also, we have somethings which we know fully. Chess, for instance, is known fully, in the sense that we have created the system entirely. Euclidean geometry for a less trivial example, also, is a complete system.
"***therefore there are experts in the field of religion (and admittedly quacks as well)"
It depends. Can religion be empirically or philosophically verified? IF so, there are experts. If not, and it requires notions of acceptance before validation, then no, there is no such thing as a religious expert.
"***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 "
It depends. Causality demands that similar things produce similar ends. But yes, we cannot simply extrapollate without testing on empirical matters in most cases. But if the substance is the same, we can say that no, it is not going to randomly turn into anti-matter, or some such nonsense.
"***Such direct perceptions are not automatically authoritative - see above"
Are you denying that empirical observation produces knowledge of the world, specifically to the rigour of the scientific method? And if not, how do you propose we get empirical knowledge of the world more certainly?
"****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 long as the experiences are coated in the view of the religion. If one thought that everytime a cloud is in the sky, God is doing x and y things, one could then view clouds in that light. Similarly, one can characterize any experience as "self-realization", as one will adopt certain viewpoints to support it.
"***thereforeconsciousness deserves a special classification beyond the mere classification of the material elements that it is seen to inhabit"
No more than any other relation which can be destroyed, like the repeatedly mentioned bridge. But no one is here claiming that consciousness isn't important, only that it is a relational entity, which like any other thing, can cease to be.
"*** 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)"
How does one even prove that we have such an eternal spirit? Moreover, what makes it "illusory"? Things come and go, what of it? The transience is real and their existence is real for the time they exist. It is not unnatural, for we too shall one day cease to be. We simply do not want to cease to be, which is quite natural when one realizes what it entails!
"****They seem important only due to illusion, just as a rope appears dangerous due to the perception of it being a snake"
Spiritual principles are only important because of illusion it can be said, too. What is objectively better? To not suffer and not to feel pleasure, or to feel pleasure and not to suffer? It seems utterly up to taste! Frankly, I prefer life myself, and rather suffer alongside pleasure, then to be annihilated!
The importance of every day things are just as real as anything else, because they do impact our pleasure and pain. Simply because these are temporary states does not mean a single thing.
"***You can test it by buying soemthing"
Yet you cannot buy something if even the shop keep himself does not know the value, or if the value of what one buys is unknown! Sure you can make an imaginary exchange, but you are still far from truth, as one has no real knowledge of it.
"****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"
Which you have failed to demonstrate can come from religion. Philosophy, on the other hand, has its result in such direct perception and understanding. We can find truth through philosophy, religion can colour anything with what it wants.
"***religion offers results not to be found in any other system"
And what results are these?
""***Thats the point- lust anger etc indicates dishonesty""
So does religious faith, which requires just the same distortion.
"***The paradigm of the truth (absence of lust etc), hence it is superior"
It substitutes the paradigm of lust for the paradigm of religion, not of objectivity. It is thus perhaps only a lesser evil, a lesser delusion.
"***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)"
Proper perception does indeed need self-control, yes, but it also needs an openness to objectivity, not something colouring experience through religion.
"*****Does this clarify the above three responses?"
Yes, but we disagree as to whether religion = good = objectivity. I will agree that objectivity is the only way to be good, 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 like excrement? It is just another physical substance. I can make no claim for its superiority over the flesh of animals, which I eat and enjoy immensely.
"***Superior consciousness grants the ability to discern values - compare your football hooligan to your university professor"
There are such things as taste. A football hooligan likes football. A university professor likes professoring. In so much as a university professor may be more inclined towards the truth, he is superior on that level, but there are football hooligan philosophers, which are quite fine. That is to say, one can be a football hooligan and be Socrates II. These tastes are not objective.
"***So why insist on proving god by an epistemology that doesn't even prove our own existence?"
The epistemology is fine. That we have a controversy is mainly because of your claims, which have not been fully substantiated as of yet, are being made. What we must use is objective truth-seeking means to achieve ends of truth. We have found those in philosophical/logical reasoning and empirical observation under rigorous vigilance.
But no, this epistemology does not rule out that you are right, only that you haven't put forth such evidence as of yet to prove this and there is evidence to suggest you are not. Similary, adopting "another epistemology", to "prove God by it", only changes the rules to rig the game. Of course we could prove God, if we make wild assertions and state those as axioms. If this is not so, what would you have us use epistemologically?
"****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"
Might I be able to find his books in major bookstores such as Barnes and Nobles, Borders, et cetera? Because I am actually going to be going to a bookstore soon to get some books and I might well take your advice and read his works.
"***Its interesting that the objectivity of perception is seen (by some) tobe the new cutting edge of science
http://www.vtweb.com/gosai/science/...in-science.html"
Some scientists are of that opinion, yes, but the majority are not, and with much more evidence on their side.
However, I must telll you that this website is notoriously unscientific, as I have been to it before and have found more than a bit of assertion and little verification, experimentally or even thought-experimentally. It is also not recognized by any leading scientific authorities, nor do I know of any papers in any peer-reviewed journals authored by people of the society and which are widely considered to hold even a pretense to the capacity for truth. That is to say, it needs a lot more verification, and I am also skeptical of anything that comes out of Indian-connected religion, on the foundation that India's current scientific knowledge is not world reknown, and many of its newspapers and other such things, make wildly inaccurate claims about science.
Not to downgrade, by the way, Indian religion as a whole, but simply to point out that Indian religion is not a vast reservoir of scientific knowledge, mind you.
"***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) "
Science is dealing with an infinite system (the empirical world) that is characterized by greater revealing through sharper measurement and instrumentation. That one can never reach the infinitely small demands that even an atom be made up of other things, and those things made of other things, and those things made of other things, et cetera, et cetera. Science, however, has quite well dealt with much of the macroscopic world and continues to deal with all sorts of issues. But yes, almost all instances where revision has been made, was in the improper evaluation by using outdated methods (pre-scientific method) or through the results being put into a larger theory. General and Special Relativity, for instance, do not so much destroy classical physics, as they point out where classical physics lacks, and where classical physics ought to be placed in a wider system. Newton's laws govern the large-scale world pretty much utterly.
