faith, belief, truth and reality, how to?

none of these things, to my mind, is an absolute- faith, truth, beauty, reality- all are subjective...

my interpretation of my religion is that my religion does not expect me to believe anything in particular, but when I do I should come to my point using "skillful" means.

That, for me, means applying the same logic to religion as I would to science. I research it. I gather evidence. I read the statistics as well as the first person narratives. And then I come to my conclusions.

Of course, "God" does not exist like that. But nor does gravity- still people have opinions on it, can state confidently what it is and how it functions. We accept the theory of gravity without question. Maybe one day we'll all feel the same about God...
 
But that discovery will have to be made out of the rational and if thats the case God will be know big deal, but if God is infinite we will never be able to fully comprehend him. All is asked is that we give a leap of faith into the absurd, in the same way Abreham was made to sacrifice his son before at last minuite God said no need to. we do it all the time in life, I sit on my chair without question it could break on me. Alot of things we do require faith. If a persons chosens the mystical path there is no better path then God.
 
Paladin said:
As a person grows in their practice they move through the rational into the post-rational. (There are) ....great examples like Aquinas, Augustine, and more.
Click to expand...
Aquinas' post-rational phase was likely very short ... assuming started at about the time he apparently gave up writing entirely after he had a sudden personal revelation (some kind of "mystical" experience whilst saying mass) to the effect that all the intellectual stuff he had devoted his career to was "just straw." Aquinas' post-rational phase would have been brief because this happened shortly before he died.
 
Netti-Netti said:
Aquinas' post-rational phase was likely very short ... assuming started at about the time he apparently gave up writing entirely after he had a sudden personal revelation (some kind of "mystical" experience whilst saying mass) to the effect that all the intellectual stuff he had devoted his career to was "just straw." Aquinas' post-rational phase would have been brief because this happened shortly before he died.
Click to expand...

He went beyond writing. It has to be to be since the Christian experience is far more meaningful than the joys of the intellect.

The incredible depth of its cosmolgy can touch one just so much. Like all art of objective worth it can open us to the temporary emotional experience of something greater than ourselves this quality of art leads us to.

When those moments of awakening come, we feel the experiential truth of the teaching at the depth of our being. After that, normal intellectual expression will always appear dry, like straw, lacking inner life. These experiences open us to a quality of emotion that doesn't arise naturally either from the earth's domain or through egotism but rather are the experiences within our being of its supernatural part that has been temporarily awakened by a higher influence not natural for the earth.
 
Juan said:
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?
Click to expand...

I know what you're getting at here. Is everything really just self-referential? Is reality, dissected with meticulous logic, just whatever we collectively decide it is? Is it all, at base, a bunch of BS we dreamed up? Because if you stare at it really hard under a bright light the bottom just sort of falls out of constructive reality.

What does reality look like outside of the constraints of social functionalism? Because functionalism- the idea that "the way things are" is the way they must remain, is creating this sense that we have of being hopelessly trapped in a logic bubble from which we cannot escape without annihilating everything we've come to regard as "self." The search for the ultimate singular principal which explains everything is a symptom of our desperate need to shore up the functional model. Without the sense of meaning derived from constantly buttressing our belief in that functional model we have no sense of control.

Chris
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
I know what you're getting at here. Is everything really just self-referential? Is reality, dissected with meticulous logic, just whatever we collectively decide it is? Is it all, at base, a bunch of BS we dreamed up? Because if you stare at it really hard under a bright light the bottom just sort of falls out of constructive reality.

What does reality look like outside of the constraints of social functionalism? Because functionalism- the idea that "the way things are" is the way they must remain, is creating this sense that we have of being hopelessly trapped in a logic bubble from which we cannot escape without annihilating everything we've come to regard as "self." The search for the ultimate singular principal which explains everything is a symptom of our desperate need to shore up the functional model. Without the sense of meaning derived from constantly buttressing our belief in that functional model we have no sense of control.

Chris
Click to expand...

That's how I read it :)
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
I know what you're getting at here. Is everything really just self-referential? Is reality, dissected with meticulous logic, just whatever we collectively decide it is? Is it all, at base, a bunch of BS we dreamed up? Because if you stare at it really hard under a bright light the bottom just sort of falls out of constructive reality.

What does reality look like outside of the constraints of social functionalism? Because functionalism- the idea that "the way things are" is the way they must remain, is creating this sense that we have of being hopelessly trapped in a logic bubble from which we cannot escape without annihilating everything we've come to regard as "self." The search for the ultimate singular principal which explains everything is a symptom of our desperate need to shore up the functional model. Without the sense of meaning derived from constantly buttressing our belief in that functional model we have no sense of control.

Chris
Click to expand...

Now that you've recognized that you don't want to annihilate self and believe there is no ultimate singular principle explaining this madness, do you intend to just accept it and be as comfortable as possible or is there another alternative?
 
Paladin said:
That's how I read it :)
Click to expand...

Dig! So when we're talking about "post-rational-ism" what's meant, really, is the idea of transcending the artificial boundaries which encircle and preserve the bubble reality like a ring-pass-not. Really, it's quite telling how we, the humans, have constructed this elaborate perimeter defense to keep us pulling the plow for the masters of the functional levers of power. We invented God to help us serve them.

But that doesn't imply that outside of that sphere of influence, in which we just so happen to be mired, there doesn't exist a First Cause. Maybe there is a God. But are we talking about that God, or the God of this system? It seems to me that the false dichotomy which pits God against science stems, really, from the politics of preserving religion as a vehicle for legitimizing the totalitarianism of the power institutions which control the functional model we call "Civilization."

Chris
 
Nick_A said:
Now that you've recognized that you don't want to annihilate self and believe there is no ultimate singular principle explaining this madness, do you intend to just accept it and be as comfortable as possible or is there another alternative?
Click to expand...

I don't know. That's an excellent question. What does one do about it? That's the question that's got me pinned to the hedge at the moment.

Chris
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
Dig! So when we're talking about "post-rational-ism" what's meant, really, is the idea of transcending the artificial boundaries which encircle and preserve the bubble reality like a ring-pass-not. Really, it's quite telling how we, the humans, have constructed this elaborate perimeter defense to keep us pulling the plow for the masters of the functional levers of power. We invented God to help us serve them.

But that doesn't imply that outside of that sphere of influence, in which we just so happen to be mired, there doesn't exist a First Cause. Maybe there is a God. But are we talking about that God, or the God of this system? It seems to me that the false dichotomy which pits God against science stems, really, from the politics of preserving religion as a vehicle for legitimizing the totalitarianism of the power institutions which control the functional model we call "Civilization."

Chris
Click to expand...
Hi Chris. I find it interesting that the Jehovah Witnesses also use the same terminology that you do for the word aiōn: they call it "this system of things."
(See also the link I put in your quoted post.)
 
seattlegal said:
Hi Chris. I find it interesting that the Jehovah Witnesses also use the same terminology that you do for the word aiōn: they call it "this system of things."
(See also the link I put in your quoted post.)
Click to expand...

I wasn't intentionally referencing that, but it occurred to me sorta in the back of my mind as I was finishing the post. There is a common theme in Protestant rhetoric which defines the "World" as a corrupt system which has fallen under the headship, as it were, of Satan.

Chris
 
Nick_A said:
Now that you've recognized that you don't want to annihilate self and believe there is no ultimate singular principle explaining this madness, do you intend to just accept it and be as comfortable as possible or is there another alternative?
Click to expand...

Part of "accepting it" includes giving up the desire for comfort.

Our comfort level varies throughout the day and is affected by the circumstances that we meet.

We should accept comfort when it is comfortable and accept discomfort when it isn't.
 
citizenzen said:
Part of "accepting it" includes giving up the desire for comfort.

Our comfort level varies throughout the day and is affected by the circumstances that we meet.

We should accept comfort when it is comfortable and accept discomfort when it isn't.
Click to expand...

Yes. Existential angst is uncomfortable. Working out makes you sore. Similar...

Chris
 
Jamarz said:
Some of us are comfortable with our discomfort. :D
Click to expand...

Quite true but they are in the minority. How many are capable of what Simone Weil describes:

"There is no detachment where there is no pain. And there is no pain endured without hatred or lying unless detachment is present too."
Click to expand...

We express the hatred and lying so deny the experience. As compensation, we feel justified.
 
GlorytoGod said:
LOL totally over my head. So what does it feel like ?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand. How does it feel to me to consider truth and reality as *supposed to be* one and the same? For me it feels great...then my beliefs line up with reality and I don't believe in fairy tales and other assorted fables and imaginary stories.

If G-d is real, and Jesus is real, then there *must* be some real, tangible, factual evidence to support that reality.

Otherwise...we are being led to believe a bunch of nice ethical fantasies and little else, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top