Question From High School Student

[SkinWalker]

In contrast, objective truths are supposed in some way to be independent of our subjective beliefs and tastes. Such truths would subsist not in the mind but in the external object.

And they do. An objective reality exists in spite of whatever "subjective" opinion you or I place on it. If I walk out of my house, my car is there in the driveway. It matters not whether I believe it is there or don't believe it to be there. It is, indeed, there. Moreover, my car has four tires mounted on four hubs of two axles. It is a blue car. While I agree theses are all subjective facts to some degree, the car exists in its present form nonetheless! Regardless of whether you see the color blue or the color violet, the wavelength of light reflected is a set distance.

The "subjective" nature of the object is removed by the set of observers agreeing upon a standard of measurement. This wavelength of light is considered blue; this part of the car is agreed to be a tire; and they are mounted to hubs; the section that connects two hubs is an axle; etc.

But regardless of what we agree to call it, the object exists. It has an objective reality that is knowable.

This is easily demonstrated by simply noting that within science there exists a culture of question, doubt, and criticism, each of which is an accepted form of objectivity. In looking at religion or the supernatural, these characteristics are shunned as heresy or avoided in favor of "faith."

1) Since when did a culture of skepticism equate with objectivism? Does that then mean that ID proponents are objective since they too are skeptics? Or will you arbitrarily and subjectively define what kind of skepticism is necessary for objectivism?

The ID proponents do, indeed, have a skeptical side to them. They profess their doubt of the validity of evolution. However, as David Hume said, "a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." The objectivity of the ID proponents is limited only to the scope of their belief system, which is grounded in Christianity.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines "objectivity" as the ability to consider or represent facts, information, etc., without being influenced by personal feelings or opinions; impartiality; detachment.

I contend that to represent facts or information without being influenced by personal feelings or opinions, it is important to employ devices of question, doubt, and criticism. When one is faced with a phenomenon that appeals to cultural beliefs (such as ghosts, for example), one must employ these devices. "My belief system says that it's the ghost of a dead hitchhiker. Did a hitchhiker really die on this stretch of road, or is it an urban legend. Could the figure of a person I thought I saw have been something else? Is there any evidence of ghosts with which to validate the hypothesis that a ghost is possible? Ghosts exist only in the minds of people, not in science."

Those are examples of objectivity in the form of questions, doubt, and criticism. I've only ever heard of ghosts from other people (most of whom heard of them from other people!). Should I ever come face-to-face with an apparition that tells me to "get out!" of an abandoned old home that I'm visiting, I will be forced to re-evaluate the proportion of belief to the evidence before me... but not before getting the hell out of the building

Science is, without a doubt, infinitely more objective than "belief" as it applies to the religious and supernatural.

2) Please cite the non-arbitrary standard with which you concluded that science is "infinitely more objective" than belief. Arguments from ignorance and circular arguments excepted. Remember too in your response that science, as I have shown repeatedly, is not founded on any "objective" basis.

I think I'd cite my paragraph above. Belief without a balance of evidence obtained from observation and experience is not in any way objective. Particularly if it is belief in spite of contrary evidence (such is the case with the so-called ability of remote viewing).

Science depends upon objectivity in order to test hypotheses and develop theories.

Incorrect.

In fact, this is circular reasoning. Science assumes objectivity in order to test and develop theories.

There is a difference, you know. But I wait for you - any of you - to qualify your statements.

That statement is easily and readily qualified by accepting the OED definition of "objectivity" as stated above. Without representation of facts and information obtained by observation while avoiding influence of personal feelings or opinions, science would not progress. When a researcher only validates that data which corroborates his or her research question or hypothesis, and disregards all data which are harmful to the hypothesis, he or she is falling victim to confirmation bias. In short, this is pseudoscience.

Show me a religion or organized belief system (such as that which follows John Edwards' ability to "channel") that does this. Does Christianity suggest the Trinity is divine but also test the notion that it is Satan that is the Supreme Being instead of God? Do the average believers of John Edwards' abilities consider that he may have really good researchers that dig into the lives of the audience from the moment they purchase tickets?

We are not debating Christianity or televangelism in this case.

Nor have I asserted that we are. I simply used these two very obvious examples of non-objective belief to demonstrate what I was saying. In fact, only half of my two examples were of Christianity and neither included televangelism.

In examining a scientific notion, this is the kind of objectivity you will see. Empiricism is quite logical: Observation and experience give rise to hypotheses and prediction. Without observed or experienced data (empiricism) nothing can be known. If that is false, then what other ways would you suggest one can "know?"

Again, this is the argument from ignorance.

I did not say it was "wrong". I never said that at all. What I did say however, is that the claim that "empiricism is quite logical" is based on circular reasoning.

I think you don't understand the subject matter enough to actually engage in discussion then, because you certainly haven't demonstrated why you consider that statement to be either "ignorant" or "circular." You haven't educated (the opposite of ignorant) us on the subject of my paragraph above nor have you shown that observation and experience giving rise to hypotheses and prediction is circular. The process is, in fact, progressive. It is certainly not begging the question to suggest that empiricism is logical, particularly since the OED defines empiricism as that which is founded upon experiment and observation. It is tautology to keep saying science is not more objective than belief without evidence and failing to effectively demonstrate this contention.

And before you go on about burden of proof, I'm responding to your claim that science is not objective and have given testimony that it is. For you to maintain that it is not, you now have to make the case.

 

[§outh§tar]

Browser almost ate the response..

And they do. An objective reality exists in spite of whatever "subjective" opinion you or I place on it. If I walk out of my house, my car is there in the driveway. It matters not whether I believe it is there or don't believe it to be there. It is, indeed, there. Moreover, my car has four tires mounted on four hubs of two axles. It is a blue car. While I agree theses are all subjective facts to some degree, the car exists in its present form nonetheless! Regardless of whether you see the color blue or the color violet, the wavelength of light reflected is a set distance.

The "subjective" nature of the object is removed by the set of observers agreeing upon a standard of measurement. This wavelength of light is considered blue; this part of the car is agreed to be a tire; and they are mounted to hubs; the section that connects two hubs is an axle; etc.

But regardless of what we agree to call it, the object exists. It has an objective reality that is knowable.

I see no reason to disagree.

The ID proponents do, indeed, have a skeptical side to them. They profess their doubt of the validity of evolution. However, as David Hume said, "a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."

This quote is actually a subjective suggestion since it is "not outside of our subjective beliefs and tastes", but that is not the issue.

The objectivity of the ID proponents is limited only to the scope of their belief system, which is grounded in Christianity.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines "objectivity" as the ability to consider or represent facts, information, etc., without being influenced by personal feelings or opinions; impartiality; detachment.

I contend that to represent facts or information without being influenced by personal feelings or opinions, it is important to employ devices of question, doubt, and criticism. When one is faced with a phenomenon that appeals to cultural beliefs (such as ghosts, for example), one must employ these devices. "My belief system says that it's the ghost of a dead hitchhiker. Did a hitchhiker really die on this stretch of road, or is it an urban legend. Could the figure of a person I thought I saw have been something else? Is there any evidence of ghosts with which to validate the hypothesis that a ghost is possible? Ghosts exist only in the minds of people, not in science."

Are you saying if something cannot be tested, it is chimerical?

Secondly, I find quite often that one's childhood and present environment, upbringing, and so many other factors permeate thought (consciously or unconsciously) so much that claiming the ability to represent facts without "personal feelings or opinions" begs the question. Such is the case of the scientists behind phlogiston, flat earths, heliocentrism, geocentrism, and ID. The point is not whether or not they are "correct" or "incorrect" claims. The point is that they were influenced by their immediate cultures. I find it hard to ignore that and claim objectivity, but that too, is not what bugs me.

Those are examples of objectivity in the form of questions, doubt, and criticism. I've only ever heard of ghosts from other people (most of whom heard of them from other people!). Should I ever come face-to-face with an apparition that tells me to "get out!" of an abandoned old home that I'm visiting, I will be forced to re-evaluate the proportion of belief to the evidence before me... but not before getting the hell out of the building

Are you sure you won't use the scientific method to check if the apparition can be repeatedly tested?

I'd be out of there quickly my self. Natural response to a threat. No 'objective' or 'subjective' labels applied.

I think I'd cite my paragraph above. Belief without a balance of evidence obtained from observation and experience is not in any way objective. Particularly if it is belief in spite of contrary evidence (such is the case with the so-called ability of remote viewing).

That statement is easily and readily qualified by accepting the OED definition of "objectivity" as stated above. Without representation of facts and information obtained by observation while avoiding influence of personal feelings or opinions, science would not progress. When a researcher only validates that data which corroborates his or her research question or hypothesis, and disregards all data which are harmful to the hypothesis, he or she is falling victim to confirmation bias. In short, this is pseudoscience.

Now we're talking.

But you understand, it STILL does not qualify the claim that science is "more objective" than *insert faith*. All you have told me so far is that science is objective. It is the arbitrary comparison I want someone to qualify for me.

Like I keep saying and somehow very few people understand, my aim is not to say the assumptions of science are objective or subjective. I just want someone to actually assume the burden of proof (as is proper) and justify the claim that it is "more objective."

Nor have I asserted that we are. I simply used these two very obvious examples of non-objective belief to demonstrate what I was saying. In fact, only half of my two examples were of Christianity and neither included televangelism.

And the difference would be?

I think you don't understand the subject matter enough to actually engage in discussion then, because you certainly haven't demonstrated why you consider that statement to be either "ignorant" or "circular." You haven't educated (the opposite of ignorant) us on the subject of my paragraph above nor have you shown that observation and experience giving rise to hypotheses and prediction is circular.

The process is, in fact, progressive. It is certainly not begging the question to suggest that empiricism is logical, particularly since the OED defines empiricism as that which is founded upon experiment and observation. It is tautology to keep saying science is not more objective than belief without evidence and failing to effectively demonstrate this contention.

Here again is the misunderstanding. The assumption that the burden of proof is on me to "educate". All I want really is for someone to qualify the claim. Unfortunately, we have delved into all manner of discussion and yet not addressed the simple request.

It really continues to baffle me as to how the onus is somehow placed on me.

And before you go on about burden of proof, I'm responding to your claim that science is not objective and have given testimony that it is. For you to maintain that it is not, you now have to make the case.

See my last response to Raithere for I tire of repeating myself. Interestingly enough, was it not Raithere who admitted that the assumptions are based on "unfounded premises", but I see you beg to differ. Problem is, that is not what I am concerned with.

Good to see a sensible chap about.

 

[Ophiolite]

Student313 - don't feel guilty about starting this. These guys will use any excuse.

 

[duendy]

both science and orthodox religion deny the individual authentic speitual experience, the former by demonization, and actual torture and murder in the good old days, and the latter via ridicule and the 'power' of 'science' to diminish any such talk

YET, we NEED that, suppressed part of our selves!....that we DO is EVIDENCED by the very culture we are living in. the sense of alienation, violence, consumerism, ecocide.........Now THIS is where the science people always step in and claim that this world of science is great, and people arfe living longer ...and etc. But i dont FEEL that

Ironically enough, from my experience of epakin and listening to the religionist fundamentalists here, they TOO seem to love this world--ala BushCo. so i am seeing a commensurate position between both apparent opposite mindsets.
But as i say, i actually see the two worldviews, literalist religionism and orthodox science as stemming from the same root--the patriarchy

surely science includes using reason doesn't it? i am not the 'scientist', but i DO wonder why the so-called scientists dont look for patterns in the history of ideas......?

 

[SkinWalker]

And I thought SouthStar and I were off topic.

 

[§outh§tar]

And I thought SouthStar and I were off topic.

Now why did I detect more sardonicism than was evident?

I love some of the covert rhetorical strategies used by members here. Brilliant.

No, really.. I mean it.

 

[Raithere]

§outh§tar,

Sorry for the delay in response. It was a busy week.

I really wasn't addressing this, I was discussing what you had to say about empiricism but let's see what we can do.

"But you and I both know, that claiming that science is "MORE objective" than *insert faith* requires substantiation. This is all I have been asking for."

This depends partly upon how you are using the word "faith". Typically, I'd use one of these definitions in context. "2 a (1) : firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof." or " b : CONFIDENCE; especially : firm or unquestioning trust or confidence in the value, power, or efficacy of something".

In opposition, science would be " 4 : a branch of study that is concerned with observation and classification of facts and especially with the establishment or strictly with the quantitative formulation of verifiable general laws chiefly by induction and hypotheses"

Given these definitions (and that objectivity exists in the first place, albeit founded on certain assumptions) I find the qualification that science is more objective rather self evident. The methodology of science is specifically designed to eliminate a subjective bias. Faith has no methodology and is strictly subjective interpretation.

(Definitions from Merriam-Webster Unabridged, online)

~Raithere

 

[MarcAC]

Religion is fantasy. Science is fact. Got it?

Interstingly, in this case, facts change. If one is looking for foundational truth; does it change? It can't - not if it is foundational. Science isn't truth - at least it doesn't claim to be - and may never based on past evidences. Humanity is on a quest for truth, purpose, destiny. Science is but one tool utlised in that search - through its agnostic, paradoxical "you alone don't know nothin' but together we know soemthin'" ideal. It may not be perfect, but it is consistent within accepted parameters - where those parameters are acceptable to the individual it works. One may sometimes wonder how it works - but it works. Of course if you are on a search for truth, destiny, and purpose science may help you with the first two somewhat - but it will ultimately lead one to believe there is no governing purpose to existence. Humanity needs more. Religion and science are surely not mutually exclusive - they are more mutually reinforcing.

 

[duendy]

hard nosed athiest scientists and their followers, & those who are scientists and followers yet believe in God, think on this:

Study the history of the transition from religion to science

for example, Judaic Christian religion had ALREADY split matter from spirit. I.e., they creeated a 'God' in their image--the male image of what they BELEVED was superior, 'spirit', and demonized what they considered inferior, woman, the body, and Nature.......meditate on this. use yer scientific minds to go study this. it's all there for your analyzing minds to get AROUND

so, do you see the situation. THAT idea of religion DIVIDES 'spirit' from 'matter'. and with this comes guilt, the indictrination of 'original sin', oppression

Now science. with the already PRECEPT of thie religious conditioning, the scientist says to the church, eg: "you take care of 'God'...and we will concentrate on physical forces"

have you got it? they already have the PREMIKSE of a SPLIT between matter and psirit. ie., the church had ALREADY mechanicalized matter by DIS-spirit-ing it in their doctrine. so from there the scientists eventually even throw out THAT idea of a 'God' that is above matter, and then we are in totaly mechanistic ideology. which is right now

what we NEEED is not either of those divisive mindset, but a re-dic-covery of the insight that matter and psirit have never ever really BEEN divided, but only in the heads of the brains who abstracted them out as separate entities, and then believed their 'logical analysis'.

 

[Raithere]

duendy,

Speaking as an athiest and a student of science, "What spirit?"

~Raithere

 

[duendy]

duendy,

Speaking as an athiest and a student of science, "What spirit?"

~Raithere

whisky!......hehe joking

'what spirit?'...hmmmmmm. if i was to say 'what matter?' there wouldn't be any problem would there? you would probably give me a lecture about objects and matter-energy, etc etc

but 'spirit'...what do i mean, and how can i explain to you who doesn't believe in......it

lets use a child as an example for the moment. when a child is morose it is very noticeable, no? an adult is another matter. so many morose looking adults you get used to it. but a morise kid makes you look and wonder: 'where her spirit?'....and then when they HAVe got spirit---jumpin about full of life, a saying says 'Aren't they full sf spirit?'

well, we TOO can feel full of spirit. sport, things that interest us. but also there is ecstasy. le crem del la crem of feeling enspirited. when not only do you feel it, all of Nature is felt to be full of spirit too

This is unexplainable--ie., dont try with mathematical symbols--but it is the essence of MEANING. and this meaning has been totally dismissed by your religion of mechansitic-science!

 

[Raithere]

'what spirit?'...hmmmmmm. if i was to say 'what matter?' there wouldn't be any problem would there?

Of course not, you can observe matter. You can touch it and taste it and poke it with a stick.

lets use a child as an example for the moment. when a child is morose it is very noticeable, no? an adult is another matter. so many morose looking adults you get used to it. but a morise kid makes you look and wonder: 'where her spirit?'....and then when they HAVe got spirit---jumpin about full of life, a saying says 'Aren't they full sf spirit?'

That's not spirit. You're describing behavior.

well, we TOO can feel full of spirit. sport, things that interest us. but also there is ecstasy. le crem del la crem of feeling enspirited. when not only do you feel it, all of Nature is felt to be full of spirit too

Now you're describing emotions. I was asking about spirit.

This is unexplainable--ie., dont try with mathematical symbols--but it is the essence of MEANING.

So "sprit" is the essence of meaning. Okay, that's a start... I guess... but it still doesn't tell me what spirit is or how I can identify it.

and this meaning has been totally dismissed by your religion of mechansitic-science!

Well, it's not a religion to start with and I don't dismiss anything off hand. I'm open to any possibility but you have to do a bit more than simply say "it's so" for me to believe you. Consciousness and emotions I can experience as well... but I find no reason to ascribe these things to some imaginary force. So I'll ask you to define spirit and tell me how we know it exists.

~Raithere

 

[duendy]

Of course not, you can observe matter. You can touch it and taste it and poke it with a stick.

d___yes. i am aware of that.

That's not spirit. You're describing behavior.

d__since when have you heard of a saying when someone is 'full of spirit' them say 'OHHH. isn;t he full of beHAVIOUR?"...leave that mechanstic-dirge to the Behaviouruists hey?

Now you're describing emotions. I was asking about spirit.

d___Yes. so you not only dis-miss 'spirit' but divide EMOTIONS from spirit!

So "sprit" is the essence of meaning. Okay, that's a start... I guess... but it still doesn't tell me what spirit is or how I can identify it.

d__No, it wont cause you can sit all day there with your legs cross arms folded and wiating for 'hard evidence' and will NEVEr find it dude. you HAVE to FEEL it. to dig it. to plunge into the abyss

Well, it's not a religion to start with and I don't dismiss anything off hand. I'm open to any possibility but you have to do a bit more than simply say "it's so" for me to believe you.

d)))you remind me of this memory i have. i once went to see a show. it was to do with the South Africa Zulu people. it was incredibly colourful...FULL of spirit. and i felt it. i was whooping in my seat. next to me was a middle aged white dude totally nonplussed with my behaviour. lookin sideways in a kind of disgust at my show of emotion.
When you see old school Afro Ameican performers and audience you see a two way thing going on. audience encourages performer and performer inspires audience. the atmospheree is full of spirit. AFro American gospel in church groups is also called 'getting the spirit'...it is a buidling up of ecstasy
noww......you--the mechansitic-minded science person may want to measure all this. place wires on the heads of the participants to try and define what is this feeling. that apporach is completely absurd and a comedy--of errors

Consciousness and emotions I can experience as well... but I find no reason to ascribe these things to some imaginary force. So I'll ask you to define spirit and tell me how we know it exists.

d__i am sure you can. but there are depths. i consider spiritualty--usually call it the 'Deep'. i understand it as a FATHOMLESS Deep. and it depends hpw much wou want to explore.
put it this way. i could recommend an experiement--if you like i could arrange with you to have you meet me in a place in the wilds n a very dark place. and then ask you to drink an hallucinogen and .......and see what happens. i can assure you that i could imagine you'd start understanding what i mean. it includes emotions -of ocurse it does, this is the MEANING. events in your life have meaning. they arent superficial. sared rtuals have always included the so-called mundane and the sacred. it's only the patriarchy that's divided them. its rather a continuum. stop thinking of spirituality in the terms of Middle Ages Christianity. spirit is in the shit

~Raithere

yip....in the shit//////////heh

 

[Raithere]

since when have you heard of a saying when someone is 'full of spirit' them say 'OHHH. isn;t he full of beHAVIOUR?"

You're describing behavior that we call "spirited". "Spirit" is simply a label for the type of behavior, such as with "silly" behavior or "strange" behavior. It's not evidence that some unknown property or force we also call "spirit" exists.

d___Yes. so you not only dis-miss 'spirit' but divide EMOTIONS from spirit!

How can I divide emotions from something that doesn't exist? According to my view all phenomena exist within the material universe, I'm not dividing anything. In fact, I'll take it one further. There is no such thing as division, everything is one.

d__No, it wont cause you can sit all day there with your legs cross arms folded and wiating for 'hard evidence' and will NEVEr find it dude. you HAVE to FEEL it. to dig it. to plunge into the abyss

Been there, done that. In fact I FEEL it every day... dude. I remain unconvinced that I need anything "extra" to describe what I feel or observe.

you remind me of this memory i have. i once went to see a show. it was to do with the South Africa Zulu people. it was incredibly colourful...FULL of spirit. and i felt it. i was whooping in my seat. next to me was a middle aged white dude totally nonplussed with my behaviour. lookin sideways in a kind of disgust at my show of emotion.

I've danced the Tarantella in costume, on stage at the Field Museum in FRONT of the audience. I've been a member of Jazz band that not only won international contests, but also got the entire audience jumping and dancing. I wasn't sitting in a chair responding to what others were doing, I was doing it myself, evoking the reaction of others. Don't try to put me in one of your boxes... I don't fit.

you--the mechansitic-minded science person may want to measure all this. place wires on the heads of the participants to try and define what is this feeling. that apporach is completely absurd and a comedy--of errors

You're mistaking materialism with determinism or with the notion that everything can be measured. The world... the material world is far too subtle and complex. I am an expression of the whole, a pattern within a larger pattern encompassing everything.

put it this way. i could recommend an experiement--if you like i could arrange with you to have you meet me in a place in the wilds n a very dark place. and then ask you to drink an hallucinogen and .......and see what happens.

Been there, done that. As I expressed to you before hallucinogens are interesting because they force a change of perspective. But any change of perspective can enhance one's understanding; I find various mental approaches more useful than chemical ones and more reliable as well.

~Raithere

 

[MarcAC]

Of course not, you can observe matter. You can touch it and taste it and poke it with a stick.

Interesting allegory. Is there matter or are there wavefunctions? Superstrings perhaps? Spirit can certainly be witnessed (indirectly) and experienced (personally); both forms of observation. Of course an "O" maybe thought of as an ellipse with some relevant eccentricity; arguing over which is which compares nothing to the consequences of the existence of the Personal, Spiritual God. One cannot allow the scientific method to define his existence - that from which it is ultimately derived. A useful tool it is - it may be more (there being truth in God's existence) most likely nothing less. Even if it's to keep our sanity in check we all need some faith. It is most likely at the base of everything we infer from existence and like an uncertainty it "propogates". As surely as I am, God Is.

 

[Raithere]

Interesting allegory. Is there matter or are there wavefunctions? Superstrings perhaps?

It's the same thing regardless of how we model it.

Spirit can certainly be witnessed (indirectly) and experienced (personally); both forms of observation.

Define spirit and then please demonstrate it's existence.

Even if it's to keep our sanity in check we all need some faith.

I have no use for faith... nothing is beyond question.

As surely as I am, God Is.

All well and fine... as long as you leave god undefined I have no issue... but, of course, no one leaves god undefined. They all start whittling away.

~Raithere

 

[MarcAC]

It's the same thing regardless of how we model it.

The problem naturally arises when these models contradict; but then such is science and so it evolves. Yes, however, God's creation is as it is.

Define spirit and then please demonstrate it's existence.

Spirit. Definition I applies. That I cannot do; not if we will end up arguing over what is an "O" as opposed to an ellipse.

I have no use for faith... nothing is beyond question.

One example in opposition is your existence; you question that? Supporting ones are, of course, your thoughts. Regardless; one may rationally state this position but rarely does one strictly adhere to it without being forced - why I wonder.

All well and fine... as long as you leave god undefined I have no issue... but, of course, no one leaves god undefined. They all start whittling away.

How can one leave God undefined? By the very statement (I am; God Is) and our inferences from existence; why not infer God's characteristics from existence? If God created what we are in now, then what he creates must at least partially contain some particulars of God's characteristics.

 

[Raithere]

Spirit. Definition I applies.

I don't have a subscription to that dictionary. Can you post the text of the entry you prefer?

That I cannot do; not if we will end up arguing over what is an "O" as opposed to an ellipse.

But didn't you just tell me, " Spirit can certainly be witnessed (indirectly) and experienced (personally); both forms of observation."? So how do I know what to look for?

One example in opposition is your existence; you question that? Supporting ones are, of course, your thoughts. Regardless; one may rationally state this position but rarely does one strictly adhere to it without being forced - why I wonder.

It depends upon how certain things are defined, I can find a working definition whereby I'd hazard the assertion that "I" exist. But the only thing I am certain of is that something exists... otherwise there could be no question. Of course, I am admittedly pragmatic and operate under the assumption that I exist, there really isn't much of a choice.

How can one leave God undefined? By the very statement (I am; God Is) and our inferences from existence; why not infer God's characteristics from existence? If God created what we are in now, then what he creates must at least partially contain some particulars of God's characteristics.

To define god we distinguish god from that which is not-god. At once this causes a problem; there is something greater than god (god + not-god). The more we define, the more we cut away until god becomes a mean little thing... more like a superhero than the source of all existence. Best to leave god as vague and all-encompassing as possible.

~Raithere

 

[duendy]

"There is something greater than god, god+not-god"

hmmm, maybe our impasse is language....you seem to have a problem NOT with 'matter' but with 'spirit'.....as you say, you feel you can trust matter cause you can ..errr poke it. yet 'spirit'.....'whare IS it?'....there is no evidence...no substance to it.

so i am in the role then of trying to explore with you my meaning if it. you see, i dont have a problem with that word cause i dont separate it from matter--which patriarchal thought HAs done
over the centuries in various ways. for example the Christian's 'City of God'.....

i like to call it the Deep, cause i am very aware of the emphasis from the patriarchy on the 'above' and the demonization of the Deep, which they refer to as 'Hell' run by the 'Devil'.

Now going back to hallucingens, and you in tthe dark place. say you take some weird concotion and feel you are deescending to your depthas........Cn you not see how this can be called being enspirited. that now you are feeling more like in a flowy dimension.....it is called 'EC-STASIS' stasis of course meaning non-changing.

so, let's take an example of someone who is very much fuked up the arse by the system doing the most boring menial mechanical job. he has become dull. doesn't look at the changing skies, the trees, the birds hoppin and flying about, listen to their song. take an interest in peoples faces, body language, like music especially music he's nt familiar with. a miserable life. wouldn't you say that matter-ered? that that wasn't static, stuck, dull, dispirited?

so looking at this individual something inside has long died. he's lost spirit

spirit/consciousness is not separate form matter-energy. they are always togther. you cannot measure consciousness though you can measure matter-energy. but you can FEEL matter-energy, and that FEELING Is consciousness, spirit

this would imply that subtle energy-matter also feels. that the space inbtween you and the Tree, the Bird FEELS as does the Tree and the Bird, the deeper you feel is awareness of this interelated feeling

this cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. that's too silly. that is logic trying to box it. like youu accuse Me of doing to you!

 

[Raithere]

so i am in the role then of trying to explore with you my meaning if it. you see

I agree...

Cn you not see how this can be called being enspirited. that now you are feeling more like in a flowy dimension...

What I see is the assumption that what you are experiencing is real. All you've done, IMO, is fucked up your perception and/or mental functioning. That's fine for fun or for a change of perspective... it can even be useful or lead to an epiphany. But I find it intrinsically no different than looking in a funhouse mirror.

so looking at this individual something inside has long died. he's lost spirit

All more or less easily changed with a conscious effort to alter his thought processes and take charge of his life. If he were literally de-spirited where would he get more spirit? If spirit is always with matter how can he loose it in the first place?

spirit/consciousness is not separate form matter-energy. they are always togther. you cannot measure consciousness though you can measure matter-energy. but you can FEEL matter-energy, and that FEELING Is consciousness, spirit

I find no need to go beyond a materialistic explanation to describe feeling and consciousness. How would you even know that all matter-energy is conscious if it is?

the deeper you feel is awareness of this interelated feeling

Everything is interrelated whether someone feels it or not. Adding feelings and "spirit" (why not just say consciousness) to the mix doesn't change anything IMO.

~Raithere