Dclemeents wrote:
Nick_A wrote:Simone Weil was a brilliant atheist who died a Christian mystic. Jacob Needleman is a brilliant Philosophy professor who was an atheist and now has an understanding of God which reminds me of those like Simone and Einstein. A good case can be made that practical atheism is the first step to the God experience since the practical atheist doesn’t practice blind denial but just doesn’t accept blind belief. Jacob Needleman’s recent book: “What is God” deals with the God question and how through inner verification from personal inner work was able to get a fresh taste of reality. Here is an interview in which Prof. Needleman explains what had happened to him. Most prefer to argue and avoid the personal work necessary to “Know Thyself” but there are also those with a need to experience truth who will do the personal work. If you are one, you may appreciate what Prof, Needleman experienced in the paragraph I highlighted.
http://www.watkinsmagazine.com/what-is- ... -needleman
But even so, somewhere in myself, I was still unconvinced—down deep I was still an atheist when it came to my personal, intimate feelings. It was only when I embarked on a personal work of guided self-examination that I experienced a glimpse of a reality that could be called “God.” As my personal explorations continued, I experienced this quality of inner reality more and more and could no longer doubt that the meaning of God lay in this direction. At the same time, these undeniable experiences lit up and were in turn illuminated by all the philosophical and historical knowledge I had by then amassed and I began to understand in an entirely new way the teachings of both Judaism and Christianity as well as the teachings of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. I was again astonished that nothing of this understanding seemed to be in all that I had heard about religion and God when I was growing up and when I was being educated in some of the best universities in America…………………………………...
This information is something new to me and I will have to look into it more in order to have something of value to really say anything it. I could be wrong but in skimming over the article the person that is discussing his belief talks about God in not a literal interpretation but a 'God' that is perceived through the spirit of everyone who believes in God. While not the exact same thing, I have talked about there being the possibility of something like 'God' through some sort of 'collective consciousness'. I know that the idea of 'collective consciousness' is looked down by several theist and atheist alike but I'm kind of happy to see I'm not the only one that sort of thinks along these lines.
Of course, I could be just misreading the article and the guy could be talking about something else since I really didn't read enough of it.
God is ineffable. As I understand it, the conscious source for the machine called our universe doesn't exist but rather IS outside the process of existence taking place within time and space. When we put a face on the ineffable it is idolatry and creates all the problems natural for idolatry.
Jacob Needleman wrote of the conscious universe. It isn’t that man as a whole creates collective consciousness but rather that human consciousness already exists and people can become open to it.
Someone placed chapter one of Jacob Needleman’s book “A Sense of the Cosmos on the net. If it makes sense perhaps we could discuss the ramifications of a conscious universe for our own conscious evolution.
http://www.tree-of-souls.com/spirituali ... leman.html
When I first discovered this premise of the universe as a vertical structure it made a profound impression on me: From the link:
In this understanding, the earth is inextricably enmeshed in a network of purposes, a ladder or hierarchy of intentions. To the ancient mind, this is the very meaning of the concept of organization and order. A cosmos--and, of course, the cosmos--is an organism, not in the sense of an unusually complicated industrial machine, but in the sense of a hierarchy of purposeful energies.
From this perspective your idea of a collective consciousness makes perfect sense. It is our origin.
-- Updated Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:38 pm to add the following --
Eduk wrote:Nick_A. I finally read the article you linked from Nicolescu. I don't follow the logic or when it can be applied. He himself confirms that in simple cases the law of excluded middle is correct but not in complex cases, but does not illustrate what is complex or not. For example I could say that I am holding a pen and that can be true or false, no third option of it being both true and false exists. I assume Nicolescu would agree with this? I would also say either the christian god from the bible exists or does not with no third option of existing and non-existing both being true and non contradictory. But I assume this doesn't count as simple? Although to my mind it is pretty simple?
But let's say that we agree with his axioms that there are infinite levels of reality, that there always exists the third option at a different level of reality and that the godelian paradox both proves Nicolescu can't prove any of his theories are complete and also proved they are correct at the same time and that none of this is in anyway a contradiction or shows any bias etc etc. Lets just assume that all of that is true. My initial question of so what can we deduce from this still remains? Please give me some practical examples which show differences. For example I believe in christian God I go to church on Sunday, I don't believe in christian God I don't go to church on Sunday, I believe a third state that there is a level of reality which christian God is real and also not real, so do I go to church or not? I can't physically go and not go (or at least I don't think I can - maybe I'm being too classical).
The process of inner self-examination brings about a knowledge that is as rigorous and supported by evidence as anything science has to offer
I remember as a child I was walking home (quite a long walk of about an hour) one day and was thinking about ghosts. I managed to reach a quite scary state where I genuinely felt an external malevolent presence. Which I quickly backed away from. There are two options here, by self-examination had revealed a hidden reality totally unverified by all mankind with no insights whatsoever to that reality (ie I had learned nothing, other than possibly I was being told to stay away, I guess that's the most you take from that). Or that the brain is complex and hallucinations and similar well known and well studied phenomena are a better explanation for my experience.
Also as a final point it would be nice if you could educate me in your opinion without first insulting me (by me I mean everyone who doesn't 100% agree with you). I don't think I have written anything insulting about you? and if I have that is certainly not my intention. For example if you don't agree with me I'm not going to say that's because of your isolated intellect or because you are blind or that my quality of thought will perplex you or that anyone who is blind will be annoyed etc etc. I don't think all the personal insults really help a genuine discussion.
Hello Eduk. You wrote:
Please give me some practical examples which show differences. For example I believe in christian God I go to church on Sunday, I don't believe in christian God I don't go to church on Sunday, I believe a third state that there is a level of reality which christian God is real and also not real, so do I go to church or not? I can't physically go and not go (or at least I don't think I can - maybe I'm being too classical).
Consider the excerpt below and the section I highlighted. As I understand it, the quanton is a middle at a higher level of reality which exists both as a corpuscle and a wave at a lower level. The quanton is the middle within which the apparent contradiction of wave and corpuscle exist as one. Of course fantasy by definition could not be reconciled at a higher level of reality.
Take the same triangle Dr. Nicolescu described at at one end of the horizontal line is theism and atheism is on the other end. As you know they are not reconciled along the horizontal line since both are misconceptions of a higher whole.. Reconciliation takes place at a higher level of reality where belief and denial are conscious actions and then the simultaneous truth of both belief and denial exist as one.
http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/b15c4.php
History will credit Stéphane Lupasco with having shown that the logic of the included middle is a true logic, formalizable and formalized, multivalent (with three values : A, non-A, and T) and non-contradictory [6]. His philosophy, which takes quantum physics as its point of departure, has been marginalized by physicists and philosophers. Curiously, on the other hand, it has had a powerful albeit underground influence among psychologists, sociologists, artists, and historians of religions. Perhaps the absence of the notion of "levels of Reality" in his philosophy obscured its substance : many persons wrongly believed that Lupasco's logic violated the principle of non-contradiction.
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 the notion of "levels of Reality" is introduced.
In order to obtain a clear image of the meaning of the included middle, we can represent the three terms of the new logic — A, non-A, and T — and the dynamics associated with them by a triangle in which one of the vertices is situated at one level of Reality and the two other vertices at another level of Reality. If one remains at a single level of Reality, all manifestation appears as a struggle between two contradictory elements (example : wave A and corpuscle non-A). The third dynamic, that of the T-state, is exercised at another level of Reality, where that which appears to be disunited (wave or corpuscle) is in fact united (quanton), and that which appears contradictory is perceived as non-contradictory.
It is the projection of T on one and the same level of Reality which produces the appearance of mutually exclusive, antagonistic pairs (A and non-A). A single level of Reality can only create antagonistic oppositions. It is inherently self-destructive if it is completely separated from all the other levels of Reality. A third term, let us call it T0, which is situated on the same level of Reality as that of the opposites A and non-A, can not accomplish their reconciliation.
The T-term is the key in understanding indeterminacy : being situated on a different level of Reality than A and non-A, it necessarily induces an influence of its own level of Reality upon its neighbouring and different level of Reality : the laws of a given level are not self-sufficient to describe the phenomena occuring at the respective level.
The entire difference between a triad of the included middle and an Hegelian triad is clarified by consideration of the role of time. In a triad of the included middle the three terms coexist at the same moment in time. On the contrary, each of the three terms of the Hegelian triad succeeds the former in time. This is why the Hegelian triad is incapable of accomplishing the reconciliation of opposites, whereas the triad of the included middle is capable of it. In the logic of the included middle the opposites are rather contradictories : the tension between contradictories builds a unity which includes and goes beyond the sum of the two terms. The Hegelian triad would never explain the nature of indeterminacy.
One also sees the great dangers of misunderstanding engendered by the common enough confusion made between the axiom of the excluded middle and the axiom of non-contradiction . The logic of the included middle is non-contradictory in the sense that the axiom of non-contradiction is thoroughly respected, a condition which enlarges the notions of "true" and "false" in such a way that the rules of logical implication no longer concerning two terms (A and non-A) but three terms (A, non-A and T), co-existing at the same moment in time. This is a formal logic, just as any other formal logic : its rules are derived by means of a relatively simple mathematical formalism.
One can see why the logic of the included middle is not simply a metaphor, like some kind of arbitrary ornament for classical logic, which would permit adventurous incursions into the domain of complexity. The logic of the included middle is the privileged logic of complexity, privileged in the sense that it allows us to cross the different areas of knowledge in a coherent way, by enabling a new kind of simplicity.
The logic of the included middle does not abolish the logic of the excluded middle : it only constrains its sphere of validity. The logic of the excluded middle is certainly valid for relatively simple situations. On the contrary, the logic of the excluded middle is harmful in complex, transdisciplinary cases. For me, the problem of indeterminacy is precisely belonging to this class of cases.
Also as a final point it would be nice if you could educate me in your opinion without first insulting me (by me I mean everyone who doesn't 100% agree with you).
I didn’t mean to be insulting. Both Plato’s cave and the Buddhis prable of the Burning House both indicate tht we are sleep to reality and as such live with both blind belief and blind denial. It is that way with me too. I’m sorry if you took it the wrong way since I was only describing the psychology of the human condition as I’ve verified it within me..
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace