What I believe.....

[Gordian Knot]

Not only another question. THE question. For me the only awareness that counts is self awareness. Too many people are quite content to be told what their awareness is, or what it should be. Too much of the time, those doing the telling have an agenda to suit themselves rather than their followers.

 

[radarmark]

That depends on their purpose for visiting or not, no? Do we know why they don't visit? Do everyone agree on that point? You have some assumptions you base your logic on?

I believe they visit all the time (see any site on RSF or Quaker theology). The logic is the same reason I believe in Gödel’s Theorem, I can experience it.

Originally Posted by Gordian Knot. Yes. I too lean more towards whatever God is, it is something within each of us, rather than something separate from us.

Indeed. Whether one are aware of it is another question.

Thomas, you know I am slow… what does the “it” refer to (g!d, something within, or something separate)?

Originally Posted by Gordian Knot. I was speaking about the concept of most of the major western religions, where God is considered separate from us. If he/she/it were a distinct entity separate from us, I would think they would want to come visit once in a while.

They might well do.

No, this one doesn't.

Thomas, excuse me, but these two comments (even to my foggy and mystically inclined mind) see contradictory. What am I missing?

 

[radarmark]

Not only another question. THE question. For me the only awareness that counts is self awareness. Too many people are quite content to be told what their awareness is, or what it should be. Too much of the time, those doing the telling have an agenda to suit themselves rather than their followers.

Self awareness is a little too exclusive I believe. Try looking up "Qualia", the thing that we ar conscious of. Without teaching (" told what their awareness is") we would not have self awareness. Forinstance the concept is very, very foreign to Homer and most "wild children".

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Woah there pardner. I never said it was a bad trait. (Did I?) In my experience eliminating opinion is an unusual trait. Matter of fact I can't remember the last time I knew anyone who did. Very Socratic of you. And he was certainly well thought of.

What I did say was that there was something about it that was nagging at me. And nag it still does. Not yet been able to put a finger on what's bugging me though.

Understood, I made a 'nagging at me' = 'bad', my mistake.
I didn't even think Socrates, but he must have been one major reason I started down this path...hey, I have a path, I didn't know that either. Think what you learn, ey?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I believe they visit all the time (see any site on RSF or Quaker theology). The logic is the same reason I believe in Gödel’s Theorem, I can experience it.

Originally Posted by Gordian Knot. Yes. I too lean more towards whatever God is, it is something within each of us, rather than something separate from us.

Thomas, you know I am slow… what does the “it” refer to (g!d, something within, or something separate)?

Originally Posted by Gordian Knot. I was speaking about the concept of most of the major western religions, where God is considered separate from us. If he/she/it were a distinct entity separate from us, I would think they would want to come visit once in a while.


Thomas, excuse me, but these two comments (even to my foggy and mystically inclined mind) see contradictory. What am I missing?

Reading your reply to me and to Thomas I want to point out that what I wrote, and what Thomas replied to, was that people don't agree. I didn't say that nothing visited.

I was surprised that you believe they do, never seen you write about it before.

 

[Paladin]

Self awareness is a little too exclusive I believe. Try looking up "Qualia", the thing that we are conscious of. Without teaching (" told what their awareness is") we would not have self awareness. For instance the concept is very, very foreign to Homer and most "wild children".

Developing self-awareness is a developmental task, it begins usually at about 4 years old, but sometimes earlier. Experiments with children and a mirror show that at some point children will notice a small smudge placed on their forehead or chin, and touch that place. Additionally, we begin to understand that others think differently than we do (theory of mind). As the pre-frontal cortex develops in adolescence and early adulthood the process continues as we develop a sense of self and hopefully become less egocentric.

 

[radarmark]

Correct from a psychological point-of-view. What does that have to do with either Homer or "wild children" (where the term or concept of self-consiousness is entirely missing)? Nothing.

Your comment may be pertinent to Western children, it is entirely off-the-mark in terms of my references.

 

[Paladin]

Correct from a psychological point-of-view. What does that have to do with either Homer or "wild children" (where the term or concept of self-consiousness is entirely missing)? Nothing.

Your comment may be pertinent to Western children, it is entirely off-the-mark in terms of my references.

Maybe, but the model I'm using is empirically consistent across cultures. In other words it isn't culturally specific. Self-awareness isn't taught it develops.

 

[Paladin]

Hey Radar,
I just got to thinking, did you mean an experience beyond just the sense of self and basic metacognition? Maybe something like having a mature, ethical criteria with which to evaluate one's thinking and behavior? Perhaps this is the role of spirituality or religious practice?

 

[Gordian Knot]

Agreed Homer had no concept of self consciousness in his writings. Not sure what relevance that has though. He is but one writer amongst many. It always seemed to me that this was a quirk of Homer himself rather than a society at large. Either that or he chose to write it from that point of view for some reason. Not that he didn't know what self consciousness was, he just decided not to use that pov in his epics.

Pure speculation, of course. It does seem more likely, though, that this was a characteristic of the writer rather than the society. Jayne's Bicameral Mind book is fascinating reading, but there is little support for it in the historical record.

 

[Gordian Knot]

I didn't even think Socrates, but he must have been one major reason I started down this path...hey, I have a path, I didn't know that either. Think what you learn, ey?

It is an interesting path to be sure. I'm a little vague on how one leads one's life when everything is open to interpretation though.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

It is an interesting path to be sure. I'm a little vague on how one leads one's life when everything is open to interpretation though.

I know right, fascinating. I guess my decision-making will come from instinct instead of intellectual planing. It's basically how it's been so far.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

" I'm a little vague on how one leads one's life when everything is open to interpretation though."

--> I agree. A person needs to have convictions. But at the same time, they need to change their convictions if these convictions later prove to be false.

 

[Thomas]

It is an interesting path to be sure. I'm a little vague on how one leads one's life when everything is open to interpretation though.

"... philosophy is not simply critical, it too belongs to the order of conviction. And religious conviction itself possesses an internal, critical dimension."
Paul Ricoeur, Critique and Conviction, 'Biblical readings and Meditations', Polity Press, 1989. p139.

 

[radarmark]

A couple of things. I like ACOT's idea of interpretation. Pretty close to my view... everything is both true and false (really a combination) and our job is to go through life and do the best that we can at coming up with a consistent pov. Yeah, I know it sounds a trifle weird and unscientific, it is merely an extension of the probabilities of quantum theory and the possibilities of process philosophy.

Yes, g!d does visit whenever two or more of us are gathered in its name. The very early Friends, Rufus Jones and Thomas Kelly teach that the presence of g!d is everywhere and in in everything (hence the "that of g!d in everyone"). It is not a dogma, but an observation based on participation in the group consciousness that is a silent Quaker Meeting. The Sp!rit is manifested as a presence or visitation. Kinda like a Pentecostal Parousia... see the Parousia is ongoing... it never stopped.

 

[Thomas]

Yes, g!d does visit whenever two or more of us are gathered in its name.

In my view God is present even when you're on your lonesome. In fact, we never are alone. (Cue that sentimental story about footsteps in the sand ... very mush, but there's a metaphysic buried in there.)

The very early Friends, Rufus Jones and Thomas Kelly teach that the presence of g!d is everywhere and in in everything (hence the "that of g!d in everyone").

Christianity goes further, everything is sustained by God, in its every moment of being: "all things were created by him and in him. And he is before all, and by him all things consist..." (Colossians 1:16-17).
Colossians is interesting, there's a strong liturgical element, and the hymn wrapped into the first chapter is a complete Christian metaphysic.

It is not a dogma, but an observation based on participation in the group consciousness that is a silent Quaker Meeting.

Oooh ... dangerous ground, the group consciousness thing. Look at the trouble we're having with Medjugorje ...

 

[Gordian Knot]

Radar said "everything is both true and false (really a combination) and our job is to go through life and do the best that we can at coming up with a consistent pov."

How it is possible to come up with a consistent pov if one believes everything is true/false? (tralse?). The outcome seems to be one's pov is there is no pov.

 

[wil]

Yes everything is both true or false, depending on perspective...

And yes Source/Principle/G!d is always with us... I picture it like the sun shining...it is upto me to decide to open the curtains, or to know the clouds are only blocking it temporarily, or it did not set...my world turned against it...but the Sun is always shining..

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

And here comes my good friends and give their very unique interpretation of what I wrote from their places in the 'wil, radar, thomas curve*'. I love it.

G-Knot, I don't know if there's a consistent point of view, but if there is one I'll probably find it on the way. Surely we aren't suppose to understand how the world works at the mere age of 30 and put our pov in stone? I have no idea what to put down anyway...love and kindness to all?

Anyway, from another perspective (too keep you on your feet) if there isn't a point of view that is in any way superior or more correct then any other then why pick one? What do you think about looking at every moment in life as an opportunity to re-evaluate everything/anything. It's a sort of freedom, yes? Responsibility always comes with freedom. And there's the possibility for growth. Not guaranteed, mind you, never guaranteed, but moving toward growing is not standing still.

What's the good points with having a one pov? What will I be missing according to your...pov?

*It wasn't a curve was it, I can't remember what it was suppose to be.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Agreed Homer had no concept of self consciousness in his writings.

IMHO, story tellers like Homer were recounting old stories. That happened in India too with Ramayana by Valmiki and Mahabharata by some story teller termed as VedaVyasa.

Don't know and wonder, why people are so hooked to the idea of God (in case of Hindus Gods and Goddesses)? I found complete freedom after abandoning the idea.