Hehe... maybe this is another difference between us - our definition of the "right" womenNick_A wrote:Hi Thuse
It's from hangin with the right women. You have to get the word in while you can.Hey Nick_A, how you keep your posts so relatively short is beyond me.
I’m not exactly sure what your asking or implying here.I recently discovered this maverick philosopher
He seems like he has paid his dues and trying to retire from the intellectual side of philosophy in order to experience something more basic.
Would an atheist believe this to be a good idea or just a waste of time in pursuit of "understanding?"
I believe in integrating all aspects of the body-mind in our pursuit of knowledge.
A purely intellectual approach (e.g. scientific materialism), or a purely emotional approach (e.g. Weil) are both equally incomplete. In philosophy and science, incomplete is necessarily both inaccurate and invalid.
Since I already integrate these things, it is not necessary for me to go through an entire life of academia in order to retire and figure this out – I have already figured this out. If your man here is just a slow learner, that doesn't really have much relevance to me.
The means towards a direct apprehension of reality, is not reserved for the intelligent or educated, it is universally accessible.
You still have to work incredibly hard for it, but it will never come from being exclusively intellectual (or exclusively emotional).
Understanding is conceptual and thus, ultimately dualistic, which is no good if, as I claim, reality is nondualistic. This is why the traditions differentiate between “wisdom” and (conceptual) “understanding”.
The “suchness” of this singular moment, the fullness of pure being, the ever-presence of Emptiness – these are things that are “larger” than the finite mind and the finite emotions, therefore cannot be grasped completely by them, ever.
My philosophy professor at University was even more qualified than this person, yet he was a scientific materialist and a Naïve Realist. So, authority does not imply accuracy.He appreciates Simone Weil so he cannot be all bad.
You misunderstand my position on Weil, which is why you seek to defend her.
I have understood Weil.
I have examined her with an open mind, evaluated the evidence and concluded that she is at an earlier stage of personal development, which is not relevant to me.
I conclude that I have nothing to gain from Weil, anymore than a student studying calculus has to gain from learning subtraction again.
However, you are insisting that I have not understood her, which is obviously not true.
It seems the reason you are doing this is simply because your belief system cannot compensate for someone like me – one who understands Weil, but does not agree with her.
That is to say, you have an idea that Weil is infallible, and that everything she says is true, and that she was an awakened being or equivalent.
I have proven this to be false, by offering lots of evidence and examining her with an open mind.
You are unable to accept this, presumably because you have too much emotional and psychological investment in her being correct.
So, you are forced to lie about me, and say I haven’t understood, when in fact it is clear that I have. For your ego, this is easier than admitting the truth and developing your position in anyway.
In other words, your denial is purely psychological; this has nothing to do with me, nor my evidence, nor my understanding, nor, actually, Weil and her ideas. It exists, entirely, in your head.
As a result, you are closed, in a way I am not, and I am open, in a way you are not.
The difference between closed and open is simply a matter of awareness. All I am asking you to do is be aware of the situation as fully as possible, which you are not prepared to do.
Also, note this difference between us: when I call people “closed”, I present reasons and evidence for this, while you simply assert it, simply on the basis that they have questioned your authority.
So, constantly reasserting her worth is actually for your own benefit, not mine. It is just like finding some mud in your milkshake and adding more milkshake to compensate – you are still the one who has to drink it. It was what Freud called “denial”.
So, it really is your loss, not mine. I will do my best to show you why, but can never do more than that. In the end, all I can say is: good luck.
It has been refuted. It is as simple as that. I insist it, because it is the case.This is what I mean. You believe something has been established which is clearly not the case. It is a form of condemnation to insist it has been refuted.First, you can never close the gap between religion and science, because currently much of your beliefs are refuted by science. So, it does no good for you to keep on trying to do something that is impossible.
Entropy, for instance, proves that energy is conserved and finite.
This means that there are no “truly” closed-systems – which means that nothing is literally, or ontologically, separate.
Therefore, ontological separation is categorically falsified, refuted, proved wrong, from an empirical, scientific and logical standpoint. That is all there is to it.
If you have still not understood why this is “clearly” the case, I would be happy to go over it in more detail for you.
However, whether or not you understand it or accept it, it doesn't change the fact.
Also, understand that I am not "merely asserting something", but providing evidence for an assertion. These two things are not the same. Dishonesty is not constructive.
Let me simplify things, because you are confusing your own claims here.Just the idea that the essence of religion concerns the quality of the moment and something science cannot measure should be sufficient to appreciate why science cannot refute the essence of religion and the relative objective quality of a moment.
The following are four separate claims of yours, which I either refute or claim to have refuted (in the case of 3.):
1. Independently and inherently existing entities – this has been disproved in literally any way it could be. This is even disproved by something as simple as causation, and the exchange of energy.
2. Ontological separation – see above. This is categorically disproved, for the same reasons.
3. Exclusively Objective quality/values etc. – This has not been refuted or disproved. I argue from a philosophical and integral position that this is false; but I argue that; I cannot and have not proved that. This is a philosophical, not scientific, point, like the first two.
4. “Levels” of Reality exist – this I claim is a category error. Whatever is in levels is reality and you are confusing a metaphor with its reference. If , however, you feel that reality literally is split into distinct levels, then this would be empirically i.e. scientifically falsified beyond doubt for the same reasons as 1. and 2.
So, it seems you are confusing what I am saying and your own arguments. I have never claimed that Objective values etc. existing is refuted by science – it isn’t.
However, distinct levels of reality, ontological separation and inherently existing entities have been completely refuted beyond all reasonable or possible doubt.
I also argue that your entire misunderstanding comes from mistaking appearance/metaphor for reality, which you refuse to be "open" to as a possibility.
Despite the reasons I have shown, apparently I am not "capable" of knowing these things - which is why I urge you sincerely to have a good read of that site “integralscience.org”, and you will see what I mean, from many educated people who are not me. Or simply research these things, and you will understand them.
It is precisely because of what you perceive of as ignorance of your subjective experience that you view science as limited; therefore, perhaps we can agree that this limitation of science might be rectified if it were to integrate the subjective.Science refutes what it can but must come to admit its limitations as to the objective quality of a moment.
However, I note that you are committing hypocrisy here, and that your argument is self-refuting, for two reasons.
First, that you accuse, rightly, science of being limited because it neglects the subjective. However, you neglect it, science, or the objective. So, you are limited in exactly the same way, only in opposition; thus your argument is completely self-defeating and fails.
Second, that “objective quality” is experienced subjectively by you. So, you are experiencing something you claim is objective, but ultimately, this is based on subjective experience. Thus, your problem is exactly the problem of science – how to infer objectivity on something experienced subjectively, whether it be data, or, as you claim, quality.
So, in this sense, your argument is meaningless, and also self-defeating.
Also, it is obviously hypocritical to assume that your subjective experience of objectivity is valid, but science’s is not. The assumption is unjustified in both cases.
Perhaps then, when you are able to see past your projections and admiration, you will be able to see her works with an open and less emotional eye, and admit the inconsistencies therein.It is a politically incorrect quality that I have the highest regard for concerning the real meaning of philosophy.
You may even drop these false assertions about the “real meaning of philosophy” or how people disagree with you because your ideas are “politically incorrect”, which are completely untrue. In spite of everything, I will keep my hopes up that you do.
I am a secularist, but I am not an absolutist.I agree. Any legit spiritual path begins with the assumption of our own nothingness. Secularism cannot do this. If it does it just leads to nihilism which is even worse.
So, not only does secularism, in my case, not lead to nihilism, it cannot possibly. I am not limited to extremes in this way.
Hence, you are mistaken.
You provoke growls not because you “question the status quo”. You are fond of this idea because it makes you feel special, self-important, like a hero/rebel etc. Unfortunately it isn’t true.So our connection to higher consciousness is blocked and social idolatry, science, and technology provides our experiences of meaning and purpose. I am doubting the beauty of social idolatry or the "Great Beast." It is no wonder that I will provoke my share of growls.
You get responses that you do because you only read biased literature, you completely ignore contradictory data to your beliefs, you repeat yourself and ignore previous points, you patronise your audience even when talking about things that they are clearly more informed about than you in and you proceed to make arrogant, self-righteous claims about how you “question the status quo”.
Despite these psychological games, in the end it is simple – you can't fool me, nor yourself, nor anyone else. Your avid reinforcement of perceived self-image is irrelevant; what you believe is only ever for your own benefit.
So, in these kinds of games, you are both the winner the loser and the one keeping the score. You decide your own level of growth, no-one else.
If you transcend yourself for a moment, you will see that I do not show you these things for my benefit. Whether you accept them or not effects only you, and you alone. But you do not seem to realise this.
Then I hope they inspire you to drop your own defence mechanisms better than I have been able to.It will give me a chance to ask questions and share some ideas with people that are open to dropping their defense mechanisms. So hostility from one direction is balanced by knowing others who aspire to more then the usual.
Eventually, I think you will be able to perceive, clearly, that you say artificial things like "knowing others who aspire to more than usual" simply to evoke a response, which you can then falsely claim is negative, and persist in your illusion.
I believe that having the courage to realise this will be liberating, and is not something that you are justified in being afraid of.
In addition, you should note that you accuse me of hostility and being closed, when in fact I am neither being hostile nor closed.
Therefore, you are currently unable to differentiate between these things; hence, no amount of gatherings will be beneficial for you to this end, if you cannot yet differentiate between the two.
I was a Christian for most of my early life, so I have had more than a few mouthfuls.How do we deny what we haven't eaten?"The relative value of the various religions is a very difficult thing to discern. It is almost impossible, perhaps quite impossible. For a religion is only known from inside. Religion is a form of nourishment. It is difficult to appreciate the flavour and food-value of something one has never eaten." Simone Weil
The argument is defeated by virtue of the simple fact that I have shown that I know things about Christianity that neither Weil nor yourself knew.
It is also defeated because, if the value of a religion can only be known from the inside, then knowing this can only be known from the inside. Yet Weil is admitting that she did not know these things from the inside about many other religions. Hence, the argument is nonsensical.
So the point is refuted.
Anyway, I think you have missed my original point – I am saying that you need to actually do these things before forming opinions about them. Otherwise, the argument is no more meaningful than your opinions of a movie you haven’t seen yet.
In my case, I do not deny nor affirm anything I “haven’t eaten”.
In contrast to Weil and yourself, I choose not to talk nor speculate about things I have no direct experience of.
I am not this assertive because of lack of reasons to be so, I assure you.
However, you don’t meditate, nor seem to understand clearly what it actually is, so none of this is more than speculation nor is it meaningful.It doesn't deny the value of meditation but rather appeals to the whole of a person allowing one to experience the value of living their philosophy. We need more than meditation but also the ability for presence so as not to be sucked out by a quickening culture. In this way and with the help of Grace, we can preserve some of the good acquired through meditation and grow towards understanding rather then the continued obsession with knowledge which leads to selfish manipulation.
Moreover, if you understood what meditation is and means, you would not be saying any of this. Nothing is acquired during meditation at all.
So, your statements are both unjustified and actually false.
I claim that if you decide to actually do these things your opinions will change rapidly.
Yes, when I refer to your concept of the Trinity, I refer to the exoteric idea of the Trinity.When you refer to the Trinity, you are expressing exoteric traditions of Christendom. For anyone that appreciates how ONE and THREE can simultaneously exist, they must be open to levels of reality.
For anyone who appreciates the value of self-knowledge, they will stop repeating empty words and start seeking within instead.
I am perplexed. I have rarely met such intense resistance.Your link to the Tetralemma does not include the third term necessary for the included middle
I will explain once more, but if you again choose not to read my actual words, then surely I can do no more.
To summarise: you are wrong. The third term of the Tetralemma is the Law of the Included Middle.
Dr. Nicolescu states:
“Our understanding of the axiom of the included middle -- there exists a third term T which is at the same time A and non-A -- is completely clarified once... “
So, the law of the Included Middle is: “a third term T which is at the same time A and not-A.”
To repeat – Included Middle = both A and not-A.
The Tetralemma’s third term is: “a third term T which is at the same time A and not-A.”
To repeat - third term of the Tetralemma = both A and not-A.
Let’s compare and contrast. This is the most important bit.
Included Mid. = both A and not-A.
3rd Tetralemma = both A and not-A.
Do you see here that the Law of the Included Middle is the 3rd term of the Tetralemma?
To illustrate this:
The Law of the Included Middle adds a third term to two pre-existent axioms.
3. Both A and Not-A ← this one is the Included Middle
The Tetralemma is exactly the same as this, but with one extra term:
3. Both A and Not-A ← this one is the Included Middle
4. Neither A nor Not-A
So, review the above diagrams, and you will see that 1., 2. And 3. are identical in each case. You will also see that 3., in both cases, is the Law of the Included Middle. You will also see that the Tetralemma includes an addition 4th term.
I really don’t know how to make this any clearer.
Well now you will have seen they are the same, because the third term is there.Without the third term, I cannot see how they are the same.
Good, you are wrong. We all are sometimes. Accept it and move on.I am willing to admit that I could be wrong.
Not necessary, see above.Are you willing to admit the same?
You cannot change what “is”.We cannot change what we DO since it is just the normal reactions of our being, but man has the capacity to change what he IS.
Whatever is, “is”.
If it is not “is”, then it is not “is”.
This is trivially true.
This is not a difference between you and I.What this means is that there is no energy or information in your body-mind, nor anywhere else, which is not part of the original potential that it arises as a form of. In short, there cannot be any amount of energy or information, anywhere, that is separated in any ontological sense at all.
This clarifies our difference. A cosmos in creation is a level of reality and lawfully distinct from others. While the materiality of a cosmos contains the materiality of cosmoses above it, it has its own unique vibratory frequency that defines it. Man on earth is of one cosmos with the potential to be normal for a higher cosmos. I find it surprising how open atheism to mechanical evolution but is closed to conscious evolution. I've always thought that if atheism is open to conscious evolution, it suggests a quality of consciousness beyond our comprehension.
This is a difference, maybe the key difference, between you and science.
This is what science has proven, the opposite it has disproven.
So, you can never unify science and religion, if this is what you think.
Put another way, science will be “open” to this when you disprove thermodynamics.
You can just be open to the idea that you are wrong.
In which case, you will see that you are wrong.
Then you will not need to disprove thermodynamics. Yay.
Yet you know none of the following things:It isn't that I deny mysticism but rather know that our problem is what goes on in daily life. We are not ONE. As a plurality we are dominated by the chaos of the interactions of the lower levels of our being. I am concerned with the human condition that can be helped from above.
1. That we are not one
2. That we are a plurality
3. That we are dominated by the chaos of lower levels of our being
4. What the human condition actually is
5. That there is something above that exists and can help.
Since you do not known, cannot know, and provide no reason for why you might know these things, beyond that you were told abut them, people will respond to you with “growls”.
I repeat: it is not, as you suspect, because you are a valiant, noble spiritual warrior, here to save mankind from the ignorant beasts who are jealous of your awakening; to mega therion.
Actually it is just because you offer no plausible reason for any of this, beyond that you read it in a book.
Atheism doesn’t teach people secular values though.My disagreement with atheism is that it assumes anything can change through teaching secular values.
Atheism is not an institution, it is a theological position.
So the disagreement doesn’t exist.
Well then maybe you should actually listen to atheists like me then, and we will purify you and your religion.As I've said, I agree that atheism serves to purify religion.
Nor can you either, obviously. This is the point.At the same time it rejects a relative quality of the moment that neither denial or science can measure.
If your girlfriend asks you if you cheated on her, and you say no, to which she replies, “So, you are denying it?” what might that imply?OK, I'll try it your way. I just don't see the difference. If someone asks me if I deny there is a cow in the kitchen, it would be the same as someone asking me if I refute that there is a cow in the kitchen.
But I am glad you are going to try it “my” way, as this is how the word is defined. “Refute” and “denial” are not synonymous; otherwise we wouldn’t have both words.
Actually, “refute” often means ‘categorically disproven’ in an overly formal context.
So, perhaps, “contest”, “question”, “challenge” or similar may be better, to avoid confusion.
Yes.From your experience with atheism, “Is the [contesting] of objective moral values common among atheists?”
The idea of values implies an evaluater, which is subjective.
Often, what most Christians refer to objective values are in fact subjective – except it is god that is the subject, the evaluater, in this case.
Since most, but not all, atheists simply lack belief in a god or gods, there cannot be any objective “evaluater” for most of them, though not all.
Some do believe in objective moral values however, and others in that values that are inherent genetically, for instance, may be called objective.
However, usually in a religious context, these are not the kind of values referred to – especially because many theists wouldn’t even deny that at least some values come about via genetics and evolution (e.g. “don’t have sex with your siblings”).
However, atheists like myself debate it on different grounds; in my case, that nothing, including values, are exclusively subjective nor objective, because reality isn’t.
No, why would there be?Would you say that there may be more sensitivity to potential word connotations with atheism then in Buddhism for example?
The word is defined a certain way. If I say, “I have a Tuesday in the board-room at 3pm tomorrow”, I would be using the word “Tuesday” instead of “meeting”. It doesn’t matter if you are a Buddhist or an atheist, “Tuesday” does not mean what “meeting” means, because humans have not defined it that way.
Ultimately, since no-one is offended, the sensitivity is simply one of linguistics.
So, perhaps those less familiar with the English language, whether Buddhist, atheist or Christian, would be less sensitive to it i.e. aware of it.