faith, belief, truth and reality, how to?

[Nick_A]

OK, this does sound remarkably like Teleology to me.

Yes, but here is the kicker. Many grow up with the idea that the universe is here to serve us. But I've come to believe it is far more realistic to see that Man is here to serve universal need. However, we have two posible ways in which we serve the universe. The first is like any other animal where universal purpose is served through the transformation of substances by our bodily processes. When we eat for example we take in certain substances and they are transformed and finally we excrete other substances. This is what animals do and is our primary purpose on earth.

However we have another possibility. Man can also participate in a conscious purpose necessary for universal need. The ancient traditions assert in one way or another that it is forgotten so consequently, regardless of our opinions of ourselves as great thinkers and artists for example, our objective worth is in the transformation of substances along with other animal life. Without consciousness, we cannot serve a higher objective purpose. Simone Weil expresses the idea IMO in an inspired fashion:

“The sea is not less beautiful to our eye because we know that sometimes ships sink in it. On the contrary, it is more beautiful still. If the sea modified the movement of its waves to spare a boat, it would be a being possessing discernment and choice, and not this fluid that is perfectly obedient to all external pressures. It is this perfect obedience that is its beauty.”

“All the horrors that are produced in this world are like the folds imprinted on the waves by gravity. This is why they contain beauty. Sometimes a poem, like the Iliad, renders this beauty.”

“Man can never escape obedience to God. A creature cannot not obey. The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity. If he does desire obedience, he remains subject to mechanical necessity, but a new necessity is added on, a necessity constituted by the laws that are proper to supernatural things. Certain actions become impossible for him, while others happen through him, sometimes despite him.”

 

[juantoo3]

If true, it will really be a shame. Mathematics measures and compares quantities quantity. 2+3=5 is a relationship of quantity. We may not understand math but that doesn't mean it cannot explain relationships of quantity as our understanding of math grows.

If there is no similar relationship of objective quality that we don't understand it would mean that neither the dharma or wisdom exists other than as subjective interpretations. No objective "meaning." What a horrible thought.

It makes more sense to me that such a whole sustem must exist that we have to grow in inner quality in order to understand

Not all people are mathematically inclined. I haven't used any "higher" math since high school, so those muscles have long ago atrophied.

You said 2+3=5...OK, I presume that is decimal. You realize the Babylonians had a sexigesimal system...so decimal math becomes unintelligible above the number 6. Or how about 10+11=101? That is every bit as accurate as 2+3=5.

So even math, as highly vaunted as it is by its adherents, is really just one more meme. It is one more *attempt* to explain, but it is no more superior than any other attempt to explain or any other meme. It makes sense to those who are capable of gleaning value from it, and it is meaningless to those to whom there is little or no value.

 

[citizenzen]

Ah! I take it then that you believe science did not begin until the age of Enlightenment in Europe...give or take 1600 AD?

I love it when people assume to tell me what I believe.

I am trying to understand it for the value it holds for those who do believe.

I think it's evident to see the "value" it holds. It provides easy answers.



Just for fun, let's see what my horoscope* says...

Sagittarius — Illusions are great until they slip into delusion.

illusion: a false or unreal perception or belief.

delusion: when someone believes something that is not true.

What the? "A false belief is great until it becomes a false belief"?! Okay. I take back the part about providing easy answers.

A love life driven by retrograde Venus can be fantasy driven.

*sigh* Another night of internet porn.

That smoke and mirror stuff fueling your funhouse is fine until you consider security

Are hackers stealing my credit card number off the internet porn site?

Make a "wake-up and smell the coffee" decision this very day.

I did! I woke up and smelled some coffee.



Yes. All is right with the world.



* HOROSCOPE by Minerva - San Francisco Chronicle Datebook • Sunday, March 1, 2009

 

[juantoo3]

However we have another possibility. Man can also participate in a conscious purpose necessary for universal need. The ancient traditions assert in one way or another that it is forgotten so consequently, regardless of our opinions of ourselves as great thinkers and artists for example, our objective worth is in the transformation of substances along with other animal life. Without consciousness, we cannot serve a higher objective purpose. Simone Weil expresses the idea IMO in an inspired fashion:

Which ancient traditions would that be?

I have no doubt that the religious memes have as an intrinsic value the teaching of morality, there may have even been a necessity to form institutions in order to better serve growing tribes as they clustered into walled cities. At their core though I am thinking it is reasonable to believe that altruism was an ancillary benefit. There is evidence of altruism even among homo-habilis I think it was, predating Cro-Magnon, and considering the grave goods found in 50 thousand year old sites, altruism is pretty endemic in the range of homo-sapiens.

Consciousness is a bug-a-boo. Anybody who has known me here for any length of time knows that one of my pet hobbies is attempting to understand the threshold of consciousness...why we have it and other critters don't...and what role it plays in the unfolding scheme of things. It is seductive to want to believe there is a correlation between consciousness and G-d, but I really hesitate. I don't know that, and with what I rationally have before me I don't see how I can know that.

Experiencially is another matter.

 

[juantoo3]

I love it when people assume to tell me what I believe.

I love it when people assume things that are not there. Please notice the question mark. I did not *tell* you anything, I asked. BIG difference. Next time please don't assume.

 

[Postmaster]

Recently Ive been thinking more along the lines of the direction of mine and everybodys lives being out of our control of where we are heading as humanity. And that we are robotic and predictable to a certain exptent. If there is such a thing as intelligent design (God) then that means I only have to put minimal effort into what I do and I think thats the key minimal effort, we all have a hefty task on surviving time and enviromental factors anyway! There is an old Chinese proverb saying that "you can travel around the world to look for something only to find its in your kitchen" One of my most favorite quotes is "do to others as you wish for yourself" although I try go beyond that anyway and "I yam what I yam and thats all that I yam" - popeye. Urika moments come when you least expect them, effort itself creates resistence, although not all the time. Drives me nuts to think about ARRRRHGGGG lol

 

[juantoo3]

I think it's evident to see the "value" it holds. It provides easy answers.

Don't all memes? Seems to me the nature of the beast.

 

[citizenzen]

Next time please don't assume.

Likewise. Next time please don't start you questions with "I take it then that you believe..."

 

[juantoo3]

Recently Ive been thinking more along the lines of the direction of mine and everybodys lives being out of our control of where we are heading as humanity. And that we are robotic and predictable to a certain extent.

Behavioral psychology would agree with you. We *are* robotic predictable animals, according to that line of reasoning.

Urika moments come when you least expect them...

Indeed, they do.

 

[juantoo3]

Likewise. Next time please don't start you questions with "I take it then that you believe..."

Sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities. Allow me to rephrase the question...do you believe science began with the European Enlightenment of the 17th century?

 

[Postmaster]

also edited my post to say that we all have a hard time surviving time and enviromental factos by the way.

 

[citizenzen]

Sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities. Allow me to rephrase the question...

Thank you for your kind consideration. I am a fragile flower.

do you believe science began with the European Enlightenment of the 17th century?

No. I believe "science" began with the first question of "what is" and "why".

You might as well ask if I believe that food began in the 16th century with the advent of early modern European cuisine, brought on by increased foreign trade, religious reformation and the scientific revolution.*

While I'm not sure, I think that food existed before then, but I'm still checking my sources.






* Early modern European cuisine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nick_A]

Which ancient traditions would that be?

I have no doubt that the religious memes have as an intrinsic value the teaching of morality, there may have even been a necessity to form institutions in order to better serve growing tribes as they clustered into walled cities. At their core though I am thinking it is reasonable to believe that altruism was an ancillary benefit. There is evidence of altruism even among homo-habilis I think it was, predating Cro-Magnon, and considering the grave goods found in 50 thousand year old sites, altruism is pretty endemic in the range of homo-sapiens.

Consciousness is a bug-a-boo. Anybody who has known me here for any length of time knows that one of my pet hobbies is attempting to understand the threshold of consciousness...why we have it and other critters don't...and what role it plays in the unfolding scheme of things. It is seductive to want to believe there is a correlation between consciousness and G-d, but I really hesitate. I don't know that, and with what I rationally have before me I don't see how I can know that.

Experiencially is another matter.

Will you agree that the ancient traditions refer to "awakening" Christianity does in its concept of re-birth and Buddhism and Hinduism as well:

I am awake

Hinduism Today | Aug 1997

Through these words the Awakened One calls us all to awaken from the sleep of unawareness and recognize our innate divine qualities.

The question remains if only artificial constructs exist you call memes, or if "Being" manifests in the universe as objective relative expressions of quality - if memes only are an expression of the absence of consciousness. Only if you accept this relativity can the scientific method be applied to the study of the objective relativity of "NOW"

There is no way we can know by using associative thought if consciousness without the contents of consciousness exists. The atheist will argue that one cannot prove that consciousness without contents exists. Those that have experienced relative states of consciousness within themselves are more inclined to believe that this relativity expands far beyond what they are capable of . The highest conscious state would be no-thing within which everything exists as potential. No-thing is pure consciousness without content within which all potential exists. Obviously it is beyond our comprehension since we exist within creation. We can think it logical that if consciousness is relative we can become more conscious which is what the ancients refer to as awakening.

This is why I said that before being able to take inner empiricism seriously and connect religion and science, we have to assume an objective reality within which the universe functions serving its purpose as a great living machine that eats itself having the symbol of the ouroboros for us.

Ouroboros

 

[juantoo3]

I believe "science" began with the first question of "what is" and "why".

And in your estimation that occured approximately when?

You might as well ask if I believe that food began in the 16th century with the advent of early modern European cuisine, brought on by increased foreign trade, religious reformation and the scientific revolution

Why should I ask this of you?

 

[citizenzen]

And in your estimation that occured approximately when?

Exactly 1.5 million years ago. Exactly.

Why should I ask this of you?

It's comparable, but perhaps only to my twisted little mind.

 

[juantoo3]

Will you agree that the ancient traditions refer to "awakening" Christianity does in its concept of re-birth and Buddhism and Hinduism as well?

I'm not trying to be difficult but I really can't just agree with something I don't understand. I can't tell you I disagree, neither can I tell you I agree. The nomenclature is foreign to me, and it simply does not resonate with my particular spirit.

I am awake

Hinduism Today | Aug 1997

These are nice links, the first one was quite beautiful.

The question remains if only artificial constructs exist you call memes, or if "Being" manifests in the universe as objective relative expressions of quality - if memes only are an expression of the absence of consciousness. Only if you accept this relativity can the scientific method be applied to the study of the objective relativity of "NOW"

If memes are artificial constructs, then I am inclined to believe every manner of understanding a human might devise is necessarily an artificial construct. Perhaps this is so, that a human mind serves only to create artificial constructs within?

I can respect that "meme" as it stands now is a relatively vague concept in part because it is yet novel, and in part because of the negative stigma attached. And being novel it is not adequately defined and expressed. But I do think it serves a purpose of attempting to define the varying and various manners in which people relate to the world around them, and arrive at some comprehension. Most memes it seems to me establish platforms on which to build, or perhaps as Paladin pointed to maybe nesting concepts within concepts.

Philosophically, I can agree there is one objective reality. At the same time, philosophically, I don't believe it is within the grasp of any human to comprehend that objective reality, certainly not in totality.

Which is my way of saying; live and let live, to each their own, there are many paths up the mountain, whatever floats your boat.

The only reason G-d is limited is within the minds of humans, within the minds of humans is where G-d finds limitations.

This is why I said that before being able to take inner empiricism seriously and connect religion and science, we have to assume an objective reality within which the universe functions serving its purpose as a great living machine that eats itself having the symbol of the ouroboros for us.

OK. Well, I don't know that science and religion can be connected, per se. They are at odds philosophically and methodologically. Besides, they are not even designed to answer the same questions. So I do agree with Paladin that pitting atheists and theists in a dogfight is just a waste of time, primarily because it is apples and oranges trying to assert authority over each other and calling the other "stupid."

I do see two places where science and religion kind of almost intersect...emotions, and morality...and those are psychological soft sciences, which is enough disqualification for either side to claim. Too much wiggle room.

 

[nativeastral]

Thank you for your kind consideration. I am a fragile flower.

must have some water in your chart then- we are more than just the archetype of the sun sign born under.

And this 'virus' meme infiltrating into philosophy of mind, coined by that member Dawkins? who has a virulent 'anti churchy' meme due to his own psychological upbringing; seems science is busily constructing concepts to over ride ones they want to dis use as 'catergory mistakes'. not only do they want to deconstruct 'consciousness' materialists also want to do away with 'subject' [too messy,variable & difficult to hypothesis!]. still at least they are taking more seriously intersubjectivity helped by quantum 'the observer affects/effects the observed'.

 

[Nick_A]

Juan

If memes are artificial constructs, then I am inclined to believe every manner of understanding a human might devise is necessarily an artificial construct. Perhaps this is so, that a human mind serves only to create artificial constructs within?

I can respect that "meme" as it stands now is a relatively vague concept in part because it is yet novel, and in part because of the negative stigma attached. And being novel it is not adequately defined and expressed. But I do think it serves a purpose of attempting to define the varying and various manners in which people relate to the world around them, and arrive at some comprehension. Most memes it seems to me establish platforms on which to build, or perhaps as Paladin pointed to maybe nesting concepts within concepts.

I agree. You are describing how life in Plato's Cave is made tolerable. We create our own reality or memes. Then society adopts memes that serve the needs of the times, both real and imaginary, and we call the collective result "culture."

Philosophically, I can agree there is one objective reality. At the same time, philosophically, I don't believe it is within the grasp of any human to comprehend that objective reality, certainly not in totality.

Which is my way of saying; live and let live, to each their own, there are many paths up the mountain, whatever floats your boat.

The only reason G-d is limited is within the minds of humans, within the minds of humans is where G-d finds limitations.

But is the inner need to get closer to objective truth- "wisdom" something to be respected or ridiculed as rocking the boat.

As you know, much to the displeasure of many here, I have the highest regard for the "Black Sheep" that feels the emptiness of cave life and is willing not to compromise it.

The goal of secular Interfaith is compromise for societal good. But for most not realizing they are in Plato's cave, all they do is kill the drive for inner meaning by putting their interests into creating compromise. This is good for the cave but bad for the budding soul.

Bobby Fisher was a nut but how many could play chess on his level? It is more important for me to appreciate his chess rather then worry about how normal he was.

Simone Weil was about as uncompromising as one can be. but Simone couldn't have given the world what she has if she did compromise and concentrate instead on writing New Age wonderful thoughts. She wrote:

"You may not realize what it is to conceive your whole life in front of you and to take the firm and constant resolve to make something of it, to orient it from one end to the other with will power and work in a chosen direction. When one is like that -- I am like that, so I know what it's like ..."

She was this way at five years old and died the same way at 34. She was called to experience a higher reality as Fisher was to the deeper relationships of the laws of chess.

One of my own ancestors was very uncompromising. Yet very few could paint as he did and depict the relationships of elemental forces. Without this drive, he couldn't be the artist he was.

How can I not support the drive for wisdom that is so scorned in favor of political correctness?

The point I am making is that though you say we cannot understand so just live and let live, I have this deep respect for those that simply don't accept this and strive to understand. This is not to say a person can abuse another but rather one doesn't have to be part of the collective. The greater calling I believe is for true "Individuality." These people could never say "it doesn't matter."

Is it possible that becoming conscious would allow the experience of memes from a higher perspective. Perhaps Father Sylvan is right:

It is extraordinary to think how much of the intellectual activity of man is actually a beginning contact with this force, this third person of the Holy Trinity. All efforts to think, being the call for confrontation between levels, are a first step towards the prayer to the holy reconciliation of presence. Thought begins with seeing, but ends, unfortunately, with the slavery to the mechanisms of conceptualization. Out of these conceptualizations, which are only the records left in the nervous system by moments of seeing, and which are needed as instruments of the energy of the spirit existing in the world, or the lower reality - out of these neural results of the spirit man erroneously tries to imitate the work of the spirit. but only the spirit can do the work of the spirit.

Thought, which means in essence seeing, exists on these many levels. There are no esoteric thoughts or esoteric ideas, as such; but there is esoteric thinking, an inner action which carries the energy of harmonization and reconciliation between levels........................

Perhaps memes are formed in this way: "Thought begins with seeing, but ends, unfortunately, with the slavery to the mechanisms of conceptualization." The creation of memes if true is a mechanical process and the essence of religion is to aid in the awakening that allows for the conscious witnessing of memes. That would lead to conscious freedom from the Cave or power of conceptualization that keeps us slaves to it.

OK. Well, I don't know that science and religion can be connected, per se. They are at odds philosophically and methodologically. Besides, they are not even designed to answer the same questions. So I do agree with Paladin that pitting atheists and theists in a dogfight is just a waste of time, primarily because it is apples and oranges trying to assert authority over each other and calling the other "stupid."

For me, if the scientific method reveals a facet of truth and the essence of religion reveals another, Truth cannot contradict truth. A contradiction for me must be the result of my limitations. The question for me then becomes if I can gradually minimize these limitations.

 

[GlorytoGod]

I agree, that is a significant part of what I am trying to get at.

It just seems strange to me that there should be any dichotomy between truth and reality. While I understand the nature of subjective POV, in that we are limited to our sensory perceptions and inputs cross-referenced to our experiencial catalogues so that we likely are experiencing an illusion of reality, and that no two of these illusory realities are identical. Even with this in mind, I mitigate psychological conflict by maintaining a critical demand for "my" truth to equate with "my" reality.

It seems though that others often approach these things with a bit different tact, in that what passes as truth may have no association with reality.

LOL totally over my head. So what does it feel like ?

Thank you for this GTG, this is an excellent example of the pre-rational POV. Please keep in mind I'm not denigrating it, just defining it.
Here the rational is automatically eschewed, thus the conflict. The rational is exceptionally useful in continuing personal growth, but even this has its eventual limits.

LOL, pre-rational what. I'm way out of depth here

 

[Paladin]

LOL totally over my head. So what does it feel like ?




LOL, pre-rational what. I'm way out of depth here

For some who practice religion, the understanding is that the rational (e.g. Science, philosophy etc.) is to be eschewed. As a person grows in their practice they move through the rational into the post-rational. Thomas could probably provide great examples like Aquinas, Augustine, and more.

In the Christian tradition today I am quite impressed with the work of Father Thomas Keating.