trust and distrust / filters / maya and its christian counterpart

[cole grey]

here is the backdrop -

Originally Posted by wynn
Again, I think that in some schools of Hinduism, they have a rather fancy solution to this kind of problem too:

For one, there is karma and reincarnation, practically doing away with the problem of evil as we are used to it in the West.

Then they have the concept that time is cyclical, and that there is no eternal damnation. That does away with a good portion of our other concerns.

For three, they have several conceptions of God and how an individual human can relate to God. This can briefly be explained on the examples of two kinds of devotion of two women. One is Queen Kunti who thinks of God as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the One from which everything else emanates; what she feels for God are awe and reverence. The other is Mother Yasoda, a foster mother of an incarnation of God. Mother Yasoda doesn't know her foster son is the Supreme Personality of Godhead; she thinks she is merely dealing with a dear child that has been entrusted into her care and she loves him unconditionally.
The idea is that a person cannot simultaneously know God to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but also love God in an intimate way.

In mainstream Christianity, one tries to have all those feelings for one conception of God. I think this is where Christianity is lacking.
The God who rules the Universe - that is the God for whom one has awe and reverence. I think awe and reverence are mutually exclusive with feelings of intimate love.
Well I never think it will be easy to travel roads like this. Perhaps this could be elaborated into a zen christian koan, if my interpretation is not sufficient. I think a child can be in awe and have intimate love at the same time. A young boy could see his intimately loved father as the all-powerful being who can make the spinach go away (referring to a podcast by ken wilbur "turning spinach into candy" http://feeds.feedburner.com/INpodcast , which is accessible on itunes, or maybe it is in here too - http://rationalspirituality.com/arti...reOfNature.htm)
Are we more than children to a God? I don't think so. The issue with our relationship to God is how to progress from beings that can only experience God in this pre-rational way, to beings who can experience God in a rational way. This is our spiritual evolutionary path, one of the external stimuli requiring evolution (the lack of habitat or whatever), being this issue of perception.

But what do humans need salvation from? God's wrath? Or their own sins, in the sense that sinning is making their lives hard, in the here and now??
I've never been able to relate to this idea of salvation or that there is a need for it. I've never liked the image of God as implied by the idea of salvation. To me, the mainstream idea of salvation just strengthens the conviction that God is a terrible being whose wrath we must try to avoid, or suffer the consequences forever. And I don't want to think about God that way.
I agree that the standard ideas of the wrathful God, from whom we must be saved, are not useful for creating anything but fear, or maybe "respect" or "awe", but never love.

In this osho video he describes our seeming need to be taught love while hate is totally natural. Although this could be denied as our "natural" state, it is undeniable that the world we live in is deeply flawed, and the responsible party (if we are to maintain any human value at all, we must also maintain responsibility), at this technologically developed stage of our existence at least, is humanity. (Just to avoid anyone misinterpreting me as an Oshoist or whatever that would be called, i disagree with much of his "answers" but deeply appreciate his train of thought in providing questions). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0H5J...feature=relmfu

So we clearly need to be saved from ourselves, or our listening to the devil, or however anyone wants to frame it. I personally am going with needing an external metaphysical intervention due to my current "understanding" of our existence as somehow relating to something outside of our current material box, but i have no problem with the idea of saving ourselves if that intervention is not going to be effective.
Actually, I think what primarily deserves discussion are ideas about evangelizing and conversion.
Interestingly, in traditional Buddhism, a Buddhist practitioner is not supposed to teach, unless so invited by the person seeking instruction. There is no notion of evangelizing as such in traditional Buddhism - evangelizing where someone would make a point of talking about spiritual/religious topics to people who are not members of the same religion he is, especially without those people inviting him to do so.
i personally think discussions on important subjects are valuable as long as they can be real discussions and not proselytizing or evangelizing. I am not judging in any way, however, those people who feel the need to stand on the street corner or run around trying to convert others, as long as they are preaching something logically consistent and valuable to humanity, which, admittedly, most are not.
The way people from different cultures think of maya is a good example: In traditional Eastern cultures, they don't associate the idea of maya with notions that this life is not real or that it is worthless; Westerners, however, tend to see it that way.
I think this is because we tend to be exposed to the idea of maya in a very limited way, not understanding its complexity and how it ties in with other ideas, and also because the people from which we hear about it or the circumstances in which we hear about it aren't all that palatable.
Here you point out one thing we need to be saved from - maya. the fact that people in the east are saved by teachers, gurus, or themselves , doesn't preclude the fact that they must be saved. Unless, of course, hanging out in this disinformation is perfectly wonderful, in which case, why bother with any striving of any kind?
(Amitabha buddha and "pure land" buddhism, also seems to allow for an external savior, and i am less informed on that subject than i should or intend to be.)
Maybe Descartes himself wasn't all that peaceful either. But he was willing to submit to the doctrine of the Catholic Church and declared himself an ardent believer.
what his private thoughts were we probably do not know, but i agree that most people are not going to be comfortable, initially, with "maybe logic", and require solid ground to stand on, right or wrong.
When it is not clear what the "self" is, or when the notion of "self" is itself what is being under scrutiny, "trusting oneself" becomes a tricky concept.
trusting oneself is necessary unless you wish to trust no one, or some one else, so i see it as less tricky than the other options.
Is it worthy to look for a happiness that would not change, not deteriorate, that would last? Some would say that it is not worthy, that there is no such happiness to begin with.
Although, arguably, it is only this lasting kind of happiness that we look for whenever we look for happiness - even when we try to find it in impermanent things and even when we rationalize it away as impossible.
I still insist that happiness is only part of what it means to be human, and until we go beyond our current state, it is futile to try to maintain a state of constant happiness, possibly even psychologically unhealthy. It is certainly cruel to taunt the world of humanity with the idea that they SHOULD be happy all the time, in this life, at least as i see it, as we exist currently. To be free from UNNECESSARY sorrow may be a good goal. To be free from the suffering CAUSED by inaccurate thinking, or other evils, yes. Not pure happiness as described by many people.

10-11-12
wynn
Originally Posted by cole grey
Well I never think it will be easy to travel roads like this. Perhaps this could be elaborated into a zen christian koan, if my interpretation is not sufficient. I think a child can be in awe and have intimate love at the same time. A young boy could see his intimately loved father as the all-powerful being who can make the spinach go away (referring to a podcast by ken wilbur "turning spinach into candy" http://feeds.feedburner.com/INpodcast , which is accessible on itunes, or maybe it is in here too - http://rationalspirituality.com/arti...reOfNature.htm)
Are we more than children to a God? I don't think so.
Sure, we can be considered as "God's children." However, we do start off with our human notions of what it means to be a child. And when an adult tries to be a child, that is usually just childish.

There is in religions sometimes the instruction that we should be "like a child" - trusting and having faith. But when adult people with adult responsibilities do that, it tends to go awfully wrong.
When children are taught religious ideas from an early age on, that is one thing.
But to expect, demand, that adults undergo the same process, the same way, that is something quite different, and is what cultism and serious mental and life problems in general are about for people who as adults try to take the route of being child-like.


In this osho video he describes our seeming need to be taught love while hate is totally natural.
Although this could be denied as our "natural" state, it is undeniable that the world we live in is deeply flawed, and the responsible party (if we are to maintain any human value at all, we must also maintain responsibility), at this technologically developed stage of our existence at least, is humanity.
Flawed - in what sense, in relation to what purpose?

To say that this world is flawed is to say that God's creation is flawed - and this is defamation of God's character.


(Just to avoid anyone misinterpreting me as an Oshoist or whatever that would be called, i disagree with much of his "answers" but deeply appreciate his train of thought in providing questions).
Osho = a big garage full of fancy cars.


So we clearly need to be saved from ourselves, or our listening to the devil, or however anyone wants to frame it.
You need to be saved from yourself, from listening to the devil?
Why do you need this salvation?


Here you point out one thing we need to be saved from - maya.
I am not sure we need to be saved from maya.

A need only exists in relation to a purpose. Ie. "For there to be X, there needs to be Y."

To what end do we need to be saved from maya?


the fact that people in the east are saved by teachers, gurus, or themselves , doesn't preclude the fact that they must be saved.

Unless, of course, hanging out in this disinformation is perfectly wonderful, in which case, why bother with any striving of any kind?
It may not be wonderful, but it's not that bad either. You love to learn, to think and all that, don't you? It gives you a sense of self-efficacy, and you like that, do you not?
Not to mention that there are many beings who simply love samsara.


trusting oneself is necessary unless you wish to trust no one, or some one else, so i see it as less tricky than the other options.
Or one can conceive of the options differently altogether. Instead of contrasting "trusting oneself," "trusting no one," and "trusting others", one can depersonalize the whole thing, and instead of thinking about it as a matter of pledging allegiance to a person (either oneself, others, or nobody), one can conceive of it as a matter of pledging allegiance to a principle.
Allegiance to a principle is more sturdy than allegiance to a person, even if allegiance to a person usually feels more real and more substantial. Relationships with people change, people change, sometimes for the worse, or die, or break up with one, so trusting oneself or others is subject to that change and decay as well. Trusting principles doesn't suffer from these problems.


I still insist that happiness is only part of what it means to be human, and until we go beyond our current state, it is futile to try to maintain a state of constant happiness, possibly even psychologically unhealthy. It is certainly cruel to taunt the world of humanity with the idea that they SHOULD be happy all the time, in this life, at least as i see it, as we exist currently. To be free from UNNECESSARY sorrow may be a good goal. To be free from the suffering CAUSED by inaccurate thinking, or other evils, yes. Not pure happiness as described by many people.
It seems you are talking about cheerfulness. Which I don't mean when I say "happiness."
Reply Reply With Quote
10-11-12


10-15-12,
cole grey
Hi
Posts
1,742
Originally Posted by wynn
Sure, we can be considered as "God's children." However, we do start off with our human notions of what it means to be a child. And when an adult tries to be a child, that is usually just childish. There is in religions sometimes the instruction that we should be "like a child" - trusting and having faith. But when adult people with adult responsibilities do that, it tends to go awfully wrong.
well, we have to think about what parts of childhood we might emulate or experience again. Clearly throwing tantrums, or forgetting how to use the toilet, is not included in the instruction "be like a child".
When children are taught religious ideas from an early age on, that is one thing.
But to expect, demand, that adults undergo the same process, the same way, that is something quite different, and is what cultism and serious mental and life problems in general are about for people who as adults try to take the route of being child-like.
This is the guru follower's state though, the guru takes on the responsibility for the person and the person gets to regress to a positive "single-mindedness". I personally wouldn't give up my freedom and responsibility that way, but i understand what a clean and simple (and yes cultish) step this is to take, if you are willing to trust someone that much. I couldn't.
Flawed - in what sense, in relation to what purpose?
well, the world is an amazing learning tool, and when i connect with that idea viscerally, i feel grateful and happy.
To say that this world is flawed is to say that God's creation is flawed - and this is defamation of God's character.
That is not clear - the creation could have been allowed to make choices which led to a state where shortcomings of human behavior are not addressed but allowed to usurp even natural functions (acid rain, frankenfoods, etc). Now of course we could regress further and further back until we reach adam and eve, and then back again to the creation idea and say "god is at fault for creating flawed people", but that is not a REQUIRED logical idea, although it is certainly as valid as the negation, and i personally tend to swing towards this placement of "ultimate responsibility". I guess to me it is clear that there are problems, God seems to let them exist, BUT that doesn't mean i have to start calling the problems pleasures. War may be a necessary evil, but it is never simply a good thing. I am not willing to assume God is just a cosmic surgeon and all the bad things are really good things, until the point when that is shown. I am willing to say things were necessary, and perhaps meaningful or important can be a better end than happiness or goodness. BUT, if i walk around thinking up is down and black is white, how will i do any thinking at all? I would rather think clearly floating on a sea of uncertainty than sit on an island made of nonsense.

You need to be saved from yourself, from listening to the devil?
to be clear i mention the devil as one of many ideas, although it is not my personal need. I need only be saved from myself, and perhaps the devils in other people, or the world systems themselves. But that is because i am clear as to where the responsibility lies for my actions.
Why do you need this salvation?
i fall short of an ideal, the world falls short of an ideal, the world as it is is what it is and has no responsibility, so the world can fall short with no negative connotation. I can't however. Because I "could" have done better. Also there is what i believe to be a metaphysical aspect of existence that i have literally no keys for. Other dimensions, spiritual or physical, I have no ability to move into or among them as far as i know.
I am not sure we need to be saved from maya.
A need only exists in relation to a purpose. Ie. "For there to be X, there needs to be Y." To what end do we need to be saved from maya?
It may not be wonderful, but it's not that bad either. You love to learn, to think and all that, don't you? It gives you a sense of self-efficacy, and you like that, do you not?
Not to mention that there are many beings who simply love samsara.
sure, we could assume that messing around in maya is something we SHOULD do. Then the buddhas are all just other players and nirvana is just another samsara I guess. Then the bodhisattva delusion isn't just a state with some delusion but is actually just as complete a delusion as all other states. The cow almost becomes a higher being than the bodhisattva at that point, at least the cow expends its energy for valid purposes.

Or one can conceive of the options differently altogether. Instead of contrasting "trusting oneself," "trusting no one," and "trusting others", one can depersonalize the whole thing, and instead of thinking about it as a matter of pledging allegiance to a person (either oneself, others, or nobody), one can conceive of it as a matter of pledging allegiance to a principle.
i don't think this changes anything. Whose principle is it? One you got from someone? One you synthesized? Who tells you when you are allied with principle? Yourself, or a leader.
Allegiance to a principle is more sturdy than allegiance to a person, even if allegiance to a person usually feels more real and more substantial. Relationships with people change, people change, sometimes for the worse, or die, or break up with one, so trusting oneself or others is subject to that change and decay as well. Trusting principles doesn't suffer from these problems.
i agree that principles are sturdier constructions than relationships generally (although the exceptions are there for both categories, relational and principle). After that though, essentially you must trust someone, or yourself, to work through the LIVING of trusting a principle anyway. I believe that particular abstraction doesn't really change the reality.
Reply Reply With Quote
10-16-12
wynn
˙
Originally Posted by cole grey
well, we have to think about what parts of childhood we might emulate or experience again. Clearly throwing tantrums, or forgetting how to use the toilet, is not included in the instruction "be like a child".
But what is?


This is the guru follower's state though, the guru takes on the responsibility for the person and the person gets to regress to a positive "single-mindedness". I personally wouldn't give up my freedom and responsibility that way, but i understand what a clean and simple (and yes cultish) step this is to take, if you are willing to trust someone that much. I couldn't.
I'm not sure I experience the teacher-student relationship in religio-spiritual contexts entirely as a matter of giving up one's freedom and responsibility.
Certainly, if one is an average Westerner who goes to India and submits to a guru, then this can be a matter of giving up one's freedom and responsibility.
But traditionally at least, teacher-student relationships in some religio-spiritual contexts, are on principle much saner, much like someone who is already good at something seeking a teacher to help him get even better at it.


To say that this world is flawed is to say that God's creation is flawed - and this is defamation of God's character.
That is not clear - the creation could have been allowed to make choices which led to a state where shortcomings of human behavior are not addressed but allowed to usurp even natural functions (acid rain, frankenfoods, etc). Now of course we could regress further and further back until we reach adam and eve, and then back again to the creation idea and say "god is at fault for creating flawed people", but that is not a REQUIRED logical idea, although it is certainly as valid as the negation, and i personally tend to swing towards this placement of "ultimate responsibility". I guess to me it is clear that there are problems, God seems to let them exist, BUT that doesn't mean i have to start calling the problems pleasures. War may be a necessary evil, but it is never simply a good thing. I am not willing to assume God is just a cosmic surgeon and all the bad things are really good things, until the point when that is shown. I am willing to say things were necessary, and perhaps meaningful or important can be a better end than happiness or goodness. BUT, if i walk around thinking up is down and black is white, how will i do any thinking at all? I would rather think clearly floating on a sea of uncertainty than sit on an island made of nonsense.
To use your words: If the world is "an amazing learning tool" in relation to which you feel "grateful and happy" - then the world is not flawed. If it serves a purpose, then it is not flawed.


Why do you need this salvation?
i fall short of an ideal, the world falls short of an ideal,
What ideal, whose ideal?

Why would you need to live up to that ideal?
What purpose would be served by living up to that ideal?

How can you be sure you are not already living up to that ideal, or aren't in the process of living up to that ideal?


i don't think this changes anything. Whose principle is it? One you got from someone? One you synthesized? Who tells you when you are allied with principle? Yourself, or a leader.
Whenever you do a math calculation, such as your finances, do you first run to all your math teachers and check with them whether you have calculated correctly?

Chances are, you don't. Some fields of knowledge are such that they give a person a measure of self-sufficiency, and it is a self-sufficiency that generally does away with problems of whether to trust oneself or others. Mathematics, grammar, cooking are good examples.

Things get trickier with spirituality/religion. But that may be simply because one hasn't learned the basics of it yet, even though one is already an adult.
I think one of the problems that we in the modern West face is that our development is so uneven. We learn maths and grammar etc. early on, but life skills and spirituality/religiosity tend to be left far behind for many people, and catching up later on can be very difficult, sometimes impossible.


i agree that principles are sturdier constructions than relationships generally (although the exceptions are there for both categories, relational and principle). After that though, essentially you must trust someone, or yourself, to work through the LIVING of trusting a principle anyway. I believe that particular abstraction doesn't really change the reality.
How we think about things can change how we act, and our actions do change our reality.

It's rather abstract to think of "trusting a principle" because the psychological momentum of trust in "trusting a principle" is minimal in comparison to the trust one may have in people. So principles, on principle (!) have much less baggage with them than relationships with people, which should making principle-based reasoning easier than people-based reasoning.


After that though, essentially you must trust someone, or yourself, to work through the LIVING of trusting a principle anyway.
I think that is an abstraction, and not a necessary one.

It's not like we are blank slates in a void who then somehow have to, by force of trust, get out of that void and become inscribed.

This whole trust issue sounds to me as when that naive Westerner goes to India and there she has to "just trust" some old dirty guy who comes along and claims to have the keys to heaven.

When talking about trust, several issues seem to be conflated - trust itself, the effort required to take the action, the results of the action, expectations about the action and the results. These things need to be thought of separately, not conflated.
Reply Reply With Quote
Today
cole grey

 

[cole grey]

Originally Posted by wynn
But what is?

perhaps we "become as children" to maintain a position of appreciation for the present moment. There are many possible childlike ideas that could be used, but we will have to "cherry-pick", i guess. Is cherry-picking really not what we all are doing? Even if we pick a particular farm to go cherry-picking at (a tradition), we are still co-creating our understanding of reality. It seems you have some sort of natural or learned aversion to this cherry-picking concept, perhaps we will discuss that more at some point later.

I'm not sure I experience the teacher-student relationship in religio-spiritual contexts entirely as a matter of giving up one's freedom and responsibility.
Certainly, if one is an average Westerner who goes to India and submits to a guru, then this can be a matter of giving up one's freedom and responsibility.
But traditionally at least, teacher-student relationships in some religio-spiritual contexts, are on principle much saner, much like someone who is already good at something seeking a teacher to help him get even better at it.

I have only had teachers that inform me, and help me to make more intelligent, or at least more informed, choices. Their job was never to make my decisions for me, so I don't have contexts for the other type - a mentor basically. A mentor is specifically not a guru. You could have a bad mentor who misleads you, but who would never have the power of a guru in your life. I am just saying teachers could be mentors and shouldn't be gurus until we reach a higher state of humanity.

To use your words: If the world is "an amazing learning tool" in relation to which you feel "grateful and happy" - then the world is not flawed. If it serves a purpose, then it is not flawed.

believing that takes real faith. The evidence doesn't show us that idea is true or false. You can have faith that the world isn't flawed, but not knowledge of that. hence my desire to apprehend being grateful and happy about this "faithed" concept is not always fulfilled.

Why would you need to live up to that ideal?

want, not need. In my ideology i don't have a metaphysical need, only physical needs, and the savior fits the metaphysical need.

What purpose would be served by living up to that ideal?

i suppose i would have a stronger feeling of life being "right". Right now, i feel that there is a lot of improvement for humanity to do, and i am not doing my own part 100%. I would like to get rid of destructive attachments, so to speak.

How can you be sure you are not already living up to that ideal, or aren't in the process of living up to that ideal?

because my ideal and my life don't overlap all that much, although in some ways they do. I would hope i am in the process of living up to the ideal, also it is possible that some of the ideal will change when i have less opportunity, and i can lower the bar, so to speak. I think it was the great spiritual teacher Yoda who said "the future is cloudy, hard to see, it is" or something like that. i am willing to give myself some benefit of the doubt, but i just can't get into that, "everything is exactly how it should be" idea, without changing my symbology/abstractions/language.

Whenever you do a math calculation, such as your finances, do you first run to all your math teachers and check with them whether you have calculated correctly?
Chances are, you don't. Some fields of knowledge are such that they give a person a measure of self-sufficiency, and it is a self-sufficiency that generally does away with problems of whether to trust oneself or others. Mathematics, grammar, cooking are good examples.

cooking is not a good example because the trust of a cook is in the tasting. If some "great chef" serves you dishes you hate, yes you will be running their credentials against your own trust in your own tastes. I personally have heard a chef mention that he isn't interested in pandering to the masses, but when you eat the dish he created it is delicious, and has all the best elements of good food in it (other than super healthy element i guess). Religion is similar. Fundie churches promise this great christian life which all people types will get once they convert. They don't tell you that when you actually get to tasting this life they are promising you, you might not like it.

Things get trickier with spirituality/religion. But that may be simply because one hasn't learned the basics of it yet, even though one is already an adult.
I think one of the problems that we in the modern West face is that our development is so uneven. We learn maths and grammar etc. early on, but life skills and spirituality/religiosity tend to be left far behind for many people, and catching up later on can be very difficult, sometimes impossible.

Religion is based on variables, or maybe ranges, not concrete provable entities. Higher level math is pretty complicated also, i guess. The higher you go, perhaps it becomes less of a system of concrete numbers that are always the same (3x3=9), and more of a set of rules with which to manipulate data, data which sometimes doesn't have to be specified as specific point in a field (9 for example). I suppose that may be similar to what i propose for religious study, i.e. that we think about the rules, and spend less time saying, "this idea isn't giving me a concrete output that makes sense right now, so let's throw it away." (E.g.Balerion's bible)

I think that is an abstraction, and not a necessary one.

i still see your trust in an ideal as an abstraction and my "living out" of the trust as the non-abstraction.

It's not like we are blank slates in a void who then somehow have to, by force of trust, get out of that void and become inscribed.

trust and distrust. There is always distrust involved, wether skepticism or denying your own perception and taking on someone else's. Children are taught that adults know better how to think and act. Perhaps in some ways, the kids would be better off without this implanted distrust of their own thoughts. I don't know.

This whole trust issue sounds to me as when that naive Westerner goes to India and there she has to "just trust" some old dirty guy who comes along and claims to have the keys to heaven.
When talking about trust, several issues seem to be conflated - trust itself, the effort required to take the action, the results of the action, expectations about the action and the results. These things need to be thought of separately, not conflated.

*tangent* On a perhaps related note, more related to our other discussions related to zen or whatever) what you describe here may be the layout of one time stream of the "second-mind" working along side the "buddha mind". The now itself, the effort required to participate in that moment, the analysis of what may or may not happen, the analysis of what actually happens. Also the other backwards direction, i.e. the now itself, the effort to exist, the analysis of what could or could not have been, and the analysis of what actually happened. I am sure there is some healthy way to have an analysis without devoting all my energy to the what if of life, what could have been, and constant value judgement of what actually is.

 

[wynn]

i still see your trust in an ideal as an abstraction and my "living out" of the trust as the non-abstraction.

trust and distrust. There is always distrust involved, wether skepticism or denying your own perception and taking on someone else's.

You are addressing this in a meta-discourse that I generally avoid.
It's a meta-discourse typical for Americans, but not for the rest of the world.

 

[wynn]

perhaps we "become as children" to maintain a position of appreciation for the present moment. There are many possible childlike ideas that could be used, but we will have to "cherry-pick", i guess. Is cherry-picking really not what we all are doing? Even if we pick a particular farm to go cherry-picking at (a tradition), we are still co-creating our understanding of reality. It seems you have some sort of natural or learned aversion to this cherry-picking concept, perhaps we will discuss that more at some point later.

Cherry-picking is a problem in the sense that by cherry-picking, one cuts oneself off from what is promised.

If you pick and choose what ingredients and procedures from a recipe you will use, you can't really expect that the recipe will turn out as promised.

Of course, if you're not interested in what is promised, then that is another matter.

I presume that people join a religion because they want what the religion promises.

I have only had teachers that inform me, and help me to make more intelligent, or at least more informed, choices. Their job was never to make my decisions for me, so I don't have contexts for the other type - a mentor basically. A mentor is specifically not a guru. You could have a bad mentor who misleads you, but who would never have the power of a guru in your life. I am just saying teachers could be mentors and shouldn't be gurus until we reach a higher state of humanity.

Who is this "we"? Humanity as a whole?

want, not need. In my ideology i don't have a metaphysical need, only physical needs, and the savior fits the metaphysical need.

Can't relate to that.

cooking is not a good example because the trust of a cook is in the tasting. If some "great chef" serves you dishes you hate, yes you will be running their credentials against your own trust in your own tastes. I personally have heard a chef mention that he isn't interested in pandering to the masses, but when you eat the dish he created it is delicious, and has all the best elements of good food in it (other than super healthy element i guess).

It's interesting that you focused on this aspect of cooking, which is one I did not have in mind.
By developing a measure of self-sufficiency in cooking I meant that with time, one develops expertise as to the order and kind of procedures that are required to cook something, to recognize when something is undercooked, overcooked, etc. Cooking is essentially a matter of applied physics and chemistry. One can develop a measure of expertise, and doesn't need to go running to one's teacher, asking "Is this rice sticky or not?"

Religion is similar. Fundie churches promise this great christian life which all people types will get once they convert. They don't tell you that when you actually get to tasting this life they are promising you, you might not like it.

I think that is the responsibility of the convert-to-be.

Religion is based on variables, or maybe ranges, not concrete provable entities.

??
I take for granted that all people who claim to be religious, know what they are talking about.

trust and distrust. There is always distrust involved, wether skepticism or denying your own perception and taking on someone else's.

It's interesting that you formulate it like this, I don't know why you do so, and what are the exact things you are trying to convey.


I'd formulate it like this -

There is always selectivity involved, whether skepticism or denying one perception and taking on another one.

I don't infuse these things with a subtext of an interpersonal power game.

I find it strange to utter "You're right," "You're wrong," "I'm right," "I'm wrong."

I'd say - "That idea seems (to me) to be right/wrong" or "I agree/disagree."

That's how I was taught critical thinking in Europe.

But Americans tend to add the subtext of an interpersonal power game, and critical thinking suddenly isn't about premises anymore, but about who gets the upper hand.
So I experience the American style as a kind of button-pushing, an ego-contest.

 

[Buddha12]

I let others believe in whatever gets them through life as most of the time others do not want to convert me into what they believe.

 

[cole grey]

Cherry-picking is a problem in the sense that by cherry-picking, one cuts oneself off from what is promised.
If you pick and choose what ingredients and procedures from a recipe you will use, you can't really expect that the recipe will turn out as promised.
Of course, if you're not interested in what is promised, then that is another matter.
I presume that people join a religion because they want what the religion promises.

This assumes that your cooking teacher is completely trustworthy to pass down the recipe, which, it seems clearly to me, is not the case. The question this brings up is - does the membership in a religion, however half-hearted and unimportant the religion may remain in the persons's life, "save" them? We all cherry-pick. There are millions of people who follow most of the christian ideals, but not all, so we either must say they have a false hope, or that they are not cutting themselves off.

Who is this "we"? Humanity as a whole?

yes

It's interesting that you focused on this aspect of cooking, which is one I did not have in mind.
By developing a measure of self-sufficiency in cooking I meant that with time, one develops expertise as to the order and kind of procedures that are required to cook something, to recognize when something is undercooked, overcooked, etc. Cooking is essentially a matter of applied physics and chemistry. One can develop a measure of expertise, and doesn't need to go running to one's teacher, asking "Is this rice sticky or not?"

then you are saying experience is valid. And if so, why can't the chef go beyond the teacher, or beside at least? Should I trust my cooking 101 teacher who taught me how to boil water to decide when my pastry crust is flaky enough, or do i use my own experiences? i.e. cherry pick through my eating experiences and perhaps remember a time when i tasted something more flakey, or less so, and try to make the crust come out like that instead of following the 101 teacher who cannot make that happen.

I think that is the responsibility of the convert-to-be.

i think it is actually impossible for the convert-to-be to know whether the promise made will be fulfilled.
When Kierkegaard says that religion promises a basis for "eternal happiness" (in "the first existentialist"), he also points out that the doctrines as such cannot be proved enough to constitute that basis and that at some point faith in something that is not "known" must be employed. This is the requirement of a "belief", as opposed to a "knowledge". If the practitioner can't even rationally question all the doctrines to see whether they are in perfect harmony with providing a basis for "eternal happiness", how could a person who doesn't even know them yet?

I take for granted that all people who claim to be religious, know what they are talking about.

i would like take it for granted that people who claim to be religious make any sense at all, but religious and non-religious alike do not always even make sense, much less so can they point to concrete provable ideas once they step into the realms of philosophy and religion.

It's interesting that you formulate it like this, I don't know why you do so, and what are the exact things you are trying to convey.
I'd formulate it like this -There is always selectivity involved, whether skepticism or denying one perception and taking on another one.
I don't infuse these things with a subtext of an interpersonal power game.I find it strange to utter "You're right," "You're wrong," "I'm right," "I'm wrong."I'd say - "That idea seems (to me) to be right/wrong" or "I agree/disagree."That's how I was taught critical thinking in Europe. But Americans tend to add the subtext of an interpersonal power game, and critical thinking suddenly isn't about premises anymore, but about who gets the upper hand. So I experience the American style as a kind of button-pushing, an ego-contest.

I don't see any difference in denying that a perception is valid for me and saying, "i disagree with what you are saying". "Cooking is like this, this is why, your perception of cooking is incomplete." That is perfectly valid. It may be incorrect and it is in fact my perception of cooking that is wrong. In more complicated subjects i often insist that answers can not be either/or just as a matter of course. The reality that my personal perspective is very very limited, and OBJECTIVE right and wrong are quite difficult to see and should most often not be professed, is just part of my worldview, and I assume after a certain period of talking to someone they will understand that I am not fighting to control anyone. The point is that we all agree/disagree (if you prefer to use those words rather than trust/distrust). It doesn't matter whether we say select or trust, the point is the same - we all do this all the time, selecting from external sources, comparing them to our internal ideas, and deciding whether to accept or deny. We even do this physiologically, rejecting sounds our brains feel are unimportant. You and i do it all day long, hence i still don't see "cherry picking" as a pejorative, but rather a necessity.

 

[wynn]

This assumes that your cooking teacher is completely trustworthy to pass down the recipe, which, it seems clearly to me, is not the case. The question this brings up is - does the membership in a religion, however half-hearted and unimportant the religion may remain in the persons's life, "save" them? We all cherry-pick. There are millions of people who follow most of the christian ideals, but not all, so we either must say they have a false hope, or that they are not cutting themselves off.

Precisely.

then you are saying experience is valid. And if so, why can't the chef go beyond the teacher, or beside at least?

Who said the student can't top the teacher?

i think it is actually impossible for the convert-to-be to know whether the promise made will be fulfilled.
When Kierkegaard says that religion promises a basis for "eternal happiness" (in "the first existentialist"), he also points out that the doctrines as such cannot be proved enough to constitute that basis and that at some point faith in something that is not "known" must be employed. This is the requirement of a "belief", as opposed to a "knowledge". If the practitioner can't even rationally question all the doctrines to see whether they are in perfect harmony with providing a basis for "eternal happiness", how could a person who doesn't even know them yet?

This is the responsibility that comes with choosing a religion.
It's not clear there could even theoretically exist a way around that.

I do think that the very notion of "choosing a religion" is absurd, or trivial.
I wish that those who expect people to "choose a religion" would acknowledge that.

I've challenged LG on this several times, but he always backs away.

There seems to be no record of how Jesus has responded to such a challenge, if there existed one. Surely there had to be someone back then to ask him - "Well, Jesus, why should we believe you? You do some hocus-pocus, turn water into wine and heal some lepers and such, but any half-assed mystic can do that. On the grounds of what, Jesus, do you expect that we should just trust you?"


As for Kierkegaard: I am skeptical about his work, given that he wrote some of his major texts in character, not as "Soren Kierkegaard."

I don't see any difference in denying that a perception is valid for me and saying, "i disagree with what you are saying". "Cooking is like this, this is why, your perception of cooking is incomplete." That is perfectly valid. It may be incorrect and it is in fact my perception of cooking that is wrong. In more complicated subjects i often insist that answers can not be either/or just as a matter of course. The reality that my personal perspective is very very limited, and OBJECTIVE right and wrong are quite difficult to see and should most often not be professed, is just part of my worldview, and I assume after a certain period of talking to someone they will understand that I am not fighting to control anyone. The point is that we all agree/disagree (if you prefer to use those words rather than trust/distrust).

I think language allows for clarity of expression right away: one can tell exactly what one means. There is the aggressive, the passive, the passive-aggressive, and the assertive communication style.
But many people don't seem to be aware of that, so they don't express themselves as clearly as they think they do or as they wish they would.

It doesn't matter whether we say select or trust, the point is the same - we all do this all the time, selecting from external sources, comparing them to our internal ideas, and deciding whether to accept or deny. We even do this physiologically, rejecting sounds our brains feel are unimportant. You and i do it all day long, hence i still don't see "cherry picking" as a pejorative, but rather a necessity.

This suggests a particular ontology/epistemology that I am not sure I agree with.

 

[cole grey]

I do think that the very notion of "choosing a religion" is absurd, or trivial.
I wish that those who expect people to "choose a religion" would acknowledge that.
I've challenged LG on this several times, but he always backs away.
There seems to be no record of how Jesus has responded to such a challenge, if there existed one. Surely there had to be someone back then to ask him - "Well, Jesus, why should we believe you? You do some hocus-pocus, turn water into wine and heal some lepers and such, but any half-assed mystic can do that. On the grounds of what, Jesus, do you expect that we should just trust you?"
As for Kierkegaard: I am skeptical about his work, given that he wrote some of his major texts in character, not as "Soren Kierkegaard."

As much as i am skeptical about him as well, he frames some questions very well, and i think his ideas on what the grounds are for belief in the "thing you will base your life upon", would make sense to you. His framing of the problem, not his answer to the problem, would make sense to you i think. He even uses the word "absurd". As for Jesus, i think if the point was to prove he was the savior of mankind he did a poor job leaving proof. As something to have faith in, I think he did well. I honestly don't know why God would have chosen to do things in a particular way. It seems strange to me.

I think language allows for clarity of expression right away: one can tell exactly what one means. There is the aggressive, the passive, the passive-aggressive, and the assertive communication style.
But many people don't seem to be aware of that, so they don't express themselves as clearly as they think they do or as they wish they would.

As we have noted before, i have much less confidence in the ability of language to express ideas than you do. Part of any communication is the reception, so if the words are misinterpreted the communication is not the best possible, even when that sometimes means using the "wrong" words to get the point across.

This suggests a particular ontology/epistemology that I am not sure I agree with.

i feel more comfortable accepting the necessity of cherry picking than accepting any particular specific line of thought that i have seen so far. There always seems to be some major things i don't agree with in each tradition, and i may end up with nothing, but better that than being false.

 

[wynn]

As much as i am skeptical about him as well, he frames some questions very well, and i think his ideas on what the grounds are for belief in the "thing you will base your life upon", would make sense to you. His framing of the problem, not his answer to the problem, would make sense to you i think.

Sure. My point is that since he wrote those texts in character, not as himself, he was talking about a constructed, hypothetical convert-to-be, not an actual person.
He might as well state that in order to convert, one first has to become someone else!

As for Jesus, i think if the point was to prove he was the savior of mankind he did a poor job leaving proof. As something to have faith in, I think he did well. I honestly don't know why God would have chosen to do things in a particular way. It seems strange to me.

I can't say that I love Jesus ... that would be a hollow claim ...

As we have noted before, i have much less confidence in the ability of language to express ideas than you do. Part of any communication is the reception, so if the words are misinterpreted the communication is not the best possible, even when that sometimes means using the "wrong" words to get the point across.

There is one person with whom communication has to be clear: and that is oneself.

To judge the quality of one's communication abilities by how some other person understands one, is to set oneself up for a fall.

i feel more comfortable accepting the necessity of cherry picking than accepting any particular specific line of thought that i have seen so far. There always seems to be some major things i don't agree with in each tradition, and i may end up with nothing, but better that than being false.

Sure, but then you can't reasonably hope to get what is promised, nor can you hope to fit in with the community of believers that are nominally the same religion as yourself. So you're bound to be isolated, and it's quite possible that in this isolation, the rest of your belief will become eroded as well.

I am a confirmed ecclectic, but I see my ecclecticism as a passing stage, not as the final destination. I do believe in the "one true religion," and I do so on entirely formal grounds, namely, to find a coherent system that can explain everything.

 

[cole grey]

Sure. My point is that since he wrote those texts in character, not as himself, he was talking about a constructed, hypothetical convert-to-be, not an actual person.
He might as well state that in order to convert, one first has to become someone else!

the idea of becoming a "new creation" or "new man" may be a part of his religious view, although i think his anonymity was for practical purposes, perhaps to allow him the freedom to so whatever he wished without having to spend endless hours explaining himself to his neighbors. Also he stated his dislike of the crowd, and that truth had to be sought in the individual not in crowd assent, so perhaps he was actually avoiding somehow the crowd's input on his work by distancing himself from it.

To judge the quality of one's communication abilities by how some other person understands one, is to set oneself up for a fall.

same kierkegaard document "the first existentialist", he mentions something as possible which i totally think is impossible. An unperceived revelation. An unreceived communication is not complete. Of course, i agree that you can't expect the dog to understand if you tell him to "go run around the block and stop at the store and pee on the store owner," and that doesn't make you a bad communicator. Although saying that to a dog may imply you are a bad at communicating to dogs.

Sure, but then you can't reasonably hope to get what is promised, nor can you hope to fit in with the community of believers that are nominally the same religion as yourself. So you're bound to be isolated, and it's quite possible that in this isolation, the rest of your belief will become eroded as well.

well if you do't fit in, then going along is just pretending to believe, which surely can't be any more valuable than believing out on the fringes.

I am a confirmed ecclectic, but I see my ecclecticism as a passing stage, not as the final destination. I do believe in the "one true religion," and I do so on entirely formal grounds, namely, to find a coherent system that can explain everything.

the difference here is that you seem to expect to find some person or group who has put it all together in such a way that it makes sense. I do not. I have found many people that make sense, who i am sure i could be in a community of faith with, although i have my differences with them. I am sure nietzsche and i would not be in a community of faith together, but i don't see why i can't insist that some of what he said made sense and should be incorporated into my system of thought. I guess there is some idea in here about willingness to believe your reality tunnel coincides with other people's.

 

[wynn]

the idea of becoming a "new creation" or "new man" may be a part of his religious view, although i think his anonymity was for practical purposes, perhaps to allow him the freedom to so whatever he wished without having to spend endless hours explaining himself to his neighbors. Also he stated his dislike of the crowd, and that truth had to be sought in the individual not in crowd assent, so perhaps he was actually avoiding somehow the crowd's input on his work by distancing himself from it.

Well, that is then a merely enacted conversion, not an actual one.
Like an online forum-conversion: a poster works out his religious view on a forum, declares this and that about God, but in reality behaves as if nothing happened ...

No, that is not good enough.

same kierkegaard document "the first existentialist", he mentions something as possible which i totally think is impossible. An unperceived revelation. An unreceived communication is not complete.

An unperceived revelation? I'd say that is basic to Christianity, and to some other theisms as well.

It's rather common for theists to work out of the assumption that everyone already knows God, but denies it.

Of course, i agree that you can't expect the dog to understand if you tell him to "go run around the block and stop at the store and pee on the store owner," and that doesn't make you a bad communicator. Although saying that to a dog may imply you are a bad at communicating to dogs.

Yes, because you should have told the dog instead that he should "go run around the block and stop at the store and bark at the owner so that he pees his pants."

well if you do't fit in, then going along is just pretending to believe, which surely can't be any more valuable than believing out on the fringes.

Sure.

My point is that being out on the fringes tends to be rather stressful, very demanding, in the metaphysical sense, as well as in the practical sense.

the difference here is that you seem to expect to find some person or group who has put it all together in such a way that it makes sense.

In roundabout, yes.

 

[cole grey]

Well, that is then a merely enacted conversion, not an actual one.
Like an online forum-conversion: a poster works out his religious view on a forum, declares this and that about God, but in reality behaves as if nothing happened ...

it could be a person talking about what actually happened but using a pseudonym to allow themselves to say things that would make them uncomfortable admitting.

An unperceived revelation? I'd say that is basic to Christianity, and to some other theisms as well.

an unperceived revelation would be one that nobody perceives. I think it is safe to say that most christians feel that they have perceived christian revelations of different types. The eye may not have seen or the ear heard, but something was perceived, or at worst imagined to have been perceived.

It's rather common for theists to work out of the assumption that everyone already knows God, but denies it.

That is unfortunate. i think it is pretty unsafe intellectually to pretend we know what everyone else knows and doesn't know.

My point is that being out on the fringes tends to be rather stressful, very demanding, in the metaphysical sense, as well as in the practical sense.

i guess i feel it is less demanding than sitting in a church as the pastor claims indian religions are somehow demonic. That was the last sermon i attended at a large church, and it isn't that i would never go back, it is just that i can't sit in front of that particular guy or people like him. I voted with my feet against christianity like his. To me it is a moral issue not to sit calmly in front of talk like that. It is also not my place to argue against everything he is saying and make waves week by week.

 

[wynn]

it could be a person talking about what actually happened but using a pseudonym to allow themselves to say things that would make them uncomfortable admitting.

Why would anyone be uncomfortable admitting that he believes in God? Other than perhaps if he thinks that God is a mere sky fairy or some such.

That is unfortunate. i think it is pretty unsafe intellectually to pretend we know what everyone else knows and doesn't know.

Yet that assumption seems to be necessary for evangelical preaching.
Without the evangelist taking for granted that he knows what the other person thinks, feels and wants, there would be no basis for preaching. Instead, he'd actually have to talk to the person, which would, in most cases, be completely unproductive in terms of making converts.

i guess i feel it is less demanding than sitting in a church as the pastor claims indian religions are somehow demonic.

I agree. I couldn't stand going to a religious establishment where the people believe the Buddha is an incarnation of Krishna, but who nevertheless ascribe all kinds of nonsense to the Buddha, and don't care whether they actually can produce a scriptural reference to what the Buddha said. I would expect them to have more respect for an incarnation of the GOD they believe in. That, and a number of other things ...

That was the last sermon i attended at a large church, and it isn't that i would never go back, it is just that i can't sit in front of that particular guy or people like him. I voted with my feet against christianity like his. To me it is a moral issue not to sit calmly in front of talk like that. It is also not my place to argue against everything he is saying and make waves week by week.

Agreed.

 

[cole grey]

Why would anyone be uncomfortable admitting that he believes in God? Other than perhaps if he thinks that God is a mere sky fairy or some such.

i think with kiekegaard it wouldn't have been that so much. His approach seems to be pretty sarcastic at times, so perhaps he didn't want his public persona sullied with his impolite arguments against other philosophers.