Beyond the Duality of Blind Belief and Blind Denial

[PoeticUniverse]

why we "wander around in the dark."

My take on Rumi:

https://theomarkhayyamclubofamerica.fil ... 50-dpi.pdf

[Greatest I am]

"This thread does not intellectually choose sides. I’m interested if there are any others here who have experienced what Albert Einstein called it the “cosmic religious feeling.”

Guilty of only one intrusion into the cosmic consciousness.

It takes telepathy, and few are of my mind set, and that is why so few find anything other than the mundane, even while meditating, which I recommend.

No proof, don't ask.

Big revelations. Thinking that the supernatural is real is not advisable, that my thinking was quite sound and that I should think more demographically.

Big deal eh?

Regards
DL

[Ecurb]

My take on Rumi:

https://theomarkhayyamclubofamerica.fil ... 50-dpi.pdf

Since nobody responded to my Orwell and Conquistador post, I'll take the bait and discuss Rumi. The comic-book pictures of nubile nymphets -- with doe-eyed and childish faces and youthful sexpot bodies-- reminded me of the columnist In "The Black Book" by Oran Pamuk. Celal espouses a theory that Rumi (the great poet) murdered Shams of Tabriz. Shams was Rumi's spiritual teacher. Although they knew each other for only a couple of years, they appear to have had an intense relationship that may (or may not) have been intensified by a homosexual affair. Devout Muslims dispute the gay lovers theory, which appears to be based on the intensity of their relationship, the poems referring to Shams as the "beloved", and the fact that they once spent 40 days alone together in a cave.

Shams then disappeared mysteriously, and Rumi searched for him for months. The two standard theories of the disappearance are that Rumi's youngest son murdered Shams, or that Shams simply decided to leave. Rumi's son had motive: Shams was an itinerant dervish preacher, of lower social class than Rumi. The possibility of a gay relationship between Shams and Rumi would also threaten the Rumi Cult, which apparently provided for his family. In addition, Rumi gave 60-year-old Shams his 12-year-old step daughter in marriage, and she died in mysterious circumstances several months later. Some suggest she killed herself, and her brother avenged her death.

IN The Black Book Celal suggests that Rumi murdered Shams, and that his search for Shams was a sham, like O.J.'s search for his wife's killer. This is a mere aside, but (I hope) an interesting one. And the drawings of the child-like nymphs to which Poetic linked reminded me of the marriage, of Sham's disappearance, and of Pamuk's (Celal's) theory.

[Nick_A]

Could you elaborate on what it means to be spiritually blind…

‘God’ hasn’t been established and most likely can’t ever be because what is supposed to be everywhere is found nowhere, at first by sight, and so the wishing believers turn to another sense, that of feeling/sensation to find the pervading ‘spirit’, and so for some whose wires fire together quite often in this endeavor toward what is hoped for may, to no surprise, obtain a ‘spirit’ answer forthcoming from what’s now been strongly wired together.

‘Spiritually Blind’, then, becomes a kind of desperate claim upon those, such as Mother Teresa, who never felt the spirit of God, turning this supposed ‘handicap’ much towards being a bad label.

And yet, feelings and sensations are but second stories, they being colored by the neurotransmitters of the neurological first storey, whose existence is totally opaque to awareness and introspection.

However, all can have what they want; live and let live! It is only when they preach ‘God’ as fact and truth that they open themselves so widely to being referred to as misleading at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Even so, well, they have to, as must we all, although abilities vary, since the Cosmos does us, not the other way around, as we are reminded by

“Note that Another resident of Plato’s Cave who believes they are free and able to consciously choose.”

Parmenides held that the multiplicity of existing things, their changing forms and motion, are but an appearance of a single eternal reality (“Being”), thus giving rise to the Parmenidean principle that “all is one.” From this concept of Being, he went on to say that all claims of change or of non-Being are illogical.

Does it follow here that "I AM GOD?" Spiritual blindness is being unaware of it. The relativity of being which is essential to my philosophy is actually an illusion since all is one. I'm not being critical but just trying to understand your position.

If "all is one," does human existence have an essential purpose or is the need for purpose also an illusion?

[PoeticUniverse]

Does it follow here that "I AM GOD?" Spiritual blindness is being unaware of it. The relativity of being which is essential to my philosophy is actually an illusion since all is one. I'm not being critical but just trying to understand your position.

If "all is one," does human existence have an essential purpose or is the need for purpose also an illusion?

Parmenides held that the multiplicity of existing things, their changing forms and motion, are but an appearance of a single eternal reality (“Being”), thus giving rise to the Parmenidean principle that “all is one.” From this concept of Being, he went on to say that all claims of change or of non-Being are illogical.

Of course, 'God' is an ungrounded notion and so the layering on of more notions is kind of like building a house of cards, but it is often that we can learn something from 'what if' scenarios, plus they are also philosophic fun.

If there is an Absolute, such as a One or a Person God, then the Absolute is all there is and so there can't be a separate 'I'; thus 'I' would be an illusion, as well as that of the illusion 'I' having purpose. Nor does a relational universe of no absolutes have any rhyme or reason to it.

So what is the benefit? I suggest that experiencing our reality is the lone satisfaction, although it includes the good and the bad.

In Parmenides' and Einstein's Block Universe there is no change or time beyond that it was apparently all set in stone all at once or always was as it is, with all the past and future events included. We could meet with the people of old if we could somehow get to their world-line, which world-line would amusingly look like a kind of a tube-worm going from a fetus to a corpse. One problem is that the Block Universe is infinite into the future—and so then how could it be had as all there as extant extent.

Illusion…

Long ago, I often had lunch with the Great Lama of the Northeast at a cafe that he owned… which is a long story that you probably don't want to hear, so I'll just put the end…

I hadn’t seen the Lama in six months,
for he had been off to other continents,
but there he was, sitting in the rain.

He gave me a medium high five, as I had taught him,
and I told him that the sun would be out tomorrow,
and that it was always sunny on the inside.

He said, “Thanks, old friend.”

“Re-leasing the building?”

“Yes, probably, but we’d like to sell it.
Perhaps Buddhists shouldn’t be in business.”

“Well, it worked as a kind of outreach,
when you ran it, and the Koreans rented it and liked it for a while.”

“True.”

“How’s the new golden temple going?”

“It’s about half completed. We need another few million dollars.”

“Hmmm.”

“Yes, I know. Perhaps Buddhists shouldn’t be looking for money,
nor building a golden temple that’s not really real.”

“Yes, I’ve heard that this world isn’t really real, as an illusion,
that we shouldn’t worry about the rain or about life’s tribulations.”

“That’s what we believe. Tell me, does that work?”

“Well, um, does not life’s existence
look, seem, and act just the way it would,
in every detail, as if it were really real?”

“Yes, indeed. Exactly. That’s what they say makes for the greatest illusion of all.”

“I hate to say this, but a ‘difference’ that makes no difference Is no difference.”

“I think you’re onto something.”

[PoeticUniverse]

he drawings of the child-like nymphs to which Poetic linked reminded me of the marriage, of Sham's disappearance, and of Pamuk's (Celal's) theory.

Thanks for all the information on Rumi and Shams. How did I know about the nymphs involved that I didn't really know about? I don't draw, but I make digital composites from backgrounds and characters that DAZ and Poser artists give away or that I make… it's that the most often made characters are female!

[Nick_A]

Does it follow here that "I AM GOD?" Spiritual blindness is being unaware of it. The relativity of being which is essential to my philosophy is actually an illusion since all is one. I'm not being critical but just trying to understand your position.

If "all is one," does human existence have an essential purpose or is the need for purpose also an illusion?

Parmenides held that the multiplicity of existing things, their changing forms and motion, are but an appearance of a single eternal reality (“Being”), thus giving rise to the Parmenidean principle that “all is one.” From this concept of Being, he went on to say that all claims of change or of non-Being are illogical.

Of course, 'God' is an ungrounded notion and so the layering on of more notions is kind of like building a house of cards, but it is often that we can learn something from 'what if' scenarios, plus they are also philosophic fun.

If there is an Absolute, such as a One or a Person God, then the Absolute is all there is and so there can't be a separate 'I'; thus 'I' would be an illusion, as well as that of the illusion 'I' having purpose. Nor does a relational universe of no absolutes have any rhyme or reason to it.

So what is the benefit? I suggest that experiencing our reality is the lone satisfaction, although it includes the good and the bad.

In Parmenides' and Einstein's Block Universe there is no change or time beyond that it was apparently all set in stone all at once or always was as it is, with all the past and future events included. We could meet with the people of old if we could somehow get to their world-line, which world-line would amusingly look like a kind of a tube-worm going from a fetus to a corpse. One problem is that the Block Universe is infinite into the future—and so then how could it be had as all there as extant extent.

Illusion…

Long ago, I often had lunch with the Great Lama of the Northeast at a cafe that he owned… which is a long story that you probably don't want to hear, so I'll just put the end…

I hadn’t seen the Lama in six months,
for he had been off to other continents,
but there he was, sitting in the rain.

He gave me a medium high five, as I had taught him,
and I told him that the sun would be out tomorrow,
and that it was always sunny on the inside.

He said, “Thanks, old friend.”

“Re-leasing the building?”

“Yes, probably, but we’d like to sell it.
Perhaps Buddhists shouldn’t be in business.”

“Well, it worked as a kind of outreach,
when you ran it, and the Koreans rented it and liked it for a while.”

“True.”

“How’s the new golden temple going?”

“It’s about half completed. We need another few million dollars.”

“Hmmm.”

“Yes, I know. Perhaps Buddhists shouldn’t be looking for money,
nor building a golden temple that’s not really real.”

“Yes, I’ve heard that this world isn’t really real, as an illusion,
that we shouldn’t worry about the rain or about life’s tribulations.”

“That’s what we believe. Tell me, does that work?”

“Well, um, does not life’s existence
look, seem, and act just the way it would,
in every detail, as if it were really real?”

“Yes, indeed. Exactly. That’s what they say makes for the greatest illusion of all.”

“I hate to say this, but a ‘difference’ that makes no difference Is no difference.”

“I think you’re onto something.”

Your philosophy begins with the underground notion of a God concept. Other notions pile on it like layers producing evolution.

My philosophy begins with a conscious source beyond time and space and creation is produced by the process of involution or the slowing of vibrations and the increasing density of matter within time and space.

Obviously we have differences. But can we accept that we each have a piece of the truth. We live in a six dimensional universe culminating in block time of which we only sense the first three of length, width, and depth. The fourth dimension of time is beyond our senses not to mention the fifth dimension of eternity and the sixth of all possible eternities or what science now calls multiverse. Is there a commonality behind our pieces of the truth which could indicate the inner direction necessary to put the ship of fools in a meaningful direction provided that we have the humility to recognize it?

[PoeticUniverse]

My philosophy begins with …

… all the questions left out.

The Great Block that We Are Chips Off of

0—point; 1—Length; 2—width; 3—depth; 4—time—your world-line; 5—all your futures; 6—jump to any future; 7—all universes’ starts to ends; 8—all universes’ world-lines; 9—jump to any universe; 10—the ‘IS’ of all possible realities. Note: string theory also accords with its number of dimensions.

Humility, a ship, a commonality…

That there are Ships of Fools indicates that there is no meaning or reason for Reality; that the end of our accelerating universe is to thin out indicates what the beginning ultimately meant—nothing at all. The ultimate humility is upon us.

On the great ship, an inviolable golden template hung on the mast at eye level, reading “Life can only come from a Higher Life.”

A lowly sailor consigned to swabbing the deck noted that the golden template served for only one usage and thus violated its rule, and so he unhooked it and threw it into the sea.

The ship sailed on, hosting a festival for all aboard to celebrate the crossing of the equator…

Absolute Consciousness joined the party,
Attended by His poor relatives so hearty;
All bragged of their opinions so different,
Pro and con, which canceled out to a Great Silence.

[Nick_A]

My philosophy begins with …

… all the questions left out.

The Great Block that We Are Chips Off of

0—point; 1—Length; 2—width; 3—depth; 4—time—your world-line; 5—all your futures; 6—jump to any future; 7—all universes’ starts to ends; 8—all universes’ world-lines; 9—jump to any universe; 10—the ‘IS’ of all possible realities. Note: string theory also accords with its number of dimensions.

Humility, a ship, a commonality…

That there are Ships of Fools indicates that there is no meaning or reason for Reality; that the end of our accelerating universe is to thin out indicates what the beginning ultimately meant—nothing at all. The ultimate humility is upon us.

On the great ship, an inviolable golden template hung on the mast at eye level, reading “Life can only come from a Higher Life.”

A lowly sailor consigned to swabbing the deck noted that the golden template served for only one usage and thus violated its rule, and so he unhooked it and threw it into the sea.

The ship sailed on, hosting a festival for all aboard to celebrate the crossing of the equator…

Absolute Consciousness joined the party,
Attended by His poor relatives so hearty;
All bragged of their opinions so different,
Pro and con, which canceled out to a Great Silence.

The question of the thread asks if you know of anyone with the humility who has experienced that regardless of what they know (facts), and the opinions they argue over, in reality they understand nothing? Do you know of such people? Can they acquire "understanding" Einstein refers to here?

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

[PoeticUniverse]

The question of the thread asks if you know of anyone with the humility who has experienced that regardless of what they know (facts), and the opinions they argue over, in reality they understand nothing? Do you know of such people? Can they acquire "understanding" Einstein refers to here?

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

Yes, many people would say that they don't fully understand the wherefore, why, how, and what of Reality at Large; the emotion of awe then forms and overcomes them because they realize they are so much less than it. Some do jump to there being a Spirt-Being's Intelligence beyond just their astonishment at the Naturalistic Wonder. Either way, some insightful human mammals may thus tend to resist all hubris due to their insignificance, but for some prideful holdouts who further layer upon that they ought to be eternally rewarded for their greatness with endless satisfaction, pleasure, bliss, and so many more synonyms.

Interview With the God of Nature
Deus, sive Natura (God, or Nature)

Lastly I met the God of Einstein—Spinoza’s God.

“I am the so-called God of Nature,
Being as one and the same with it—no different;
Although that which has no difference
Is really not any different.

“Anyway, at least this is how the people awed
By Nature’s intricacy and beauty refer to Me.

“I am only here in this nebulous vicinity
Because I don’t actually exist with certainty,
But seem to some to be tautological with Nature,
Always existent and beautific.”

“It’s OK, don’t worry about it. That’s how people are.”

“Thank you, and welcome home.”

“You mean I’m back down to Earth?”

“Well at least you have a foot in it through,
Just as I seem to do.”

“I’m thankful but why did humans
Invent the theistic and deistic Gods?”

“Man created them in his image’s inward glance,
Because he was and is terrified of his insignificance,
As well as from a fear of losing the beauty
Of his life’s fantastic instance.”

“So man just proudly made declaration
That he was of Special Creation.”

“Yes.”

“Farewell and thank You for Your insight.”

He called after me.

“Enjoy reality—it’s really a place that’s better.
There’s nothing more beyond it.
All comes from fields forming matter;

“You’re electrochemical creatures—
Just as organic and natural
As anything else in Nature.

“Consider this knowledge
As the ultimate humility, if you will.

“Live life, love it—while you can,
During your worldly incarnation
From the evolving composites
Of the last 13.75 billion years.
You are here. You have arrived.”

“Panthea, the greatest God there never was…
How to explain? She does what nature does.
As a rose is still a rose by any other name,
Then so is a universe a God the same.”

[Nick_A]

Poetic Universe

but for some prideful holdouts who further layer upon that they ought to be eternally rewarded for their greatness with endless satisfaction, pleasure, bliss, and so many more synonyms.

The Great question: To whom do we belong?

IN a recent work, Henri Nouwen emphasizes the essence of spirituality in a most succinct fashion: "To whom do we belong? This is the core question of the spiritual life. Do we belong to the world, its worries, its people and its endless chain of urgencies and emergencies, or do we belong to God and God's people."

Matthew 4

8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

Perhaps Jesus was wrong. He should have accepted the Devil’s offer and ruled the world, helping people, while experiencing endless satisfaction, pleasure, bliss, and so many more synonyms.

But Jesus refused. Why? Is there a way to understand that is better than arguing opinions.

10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.

’

[Sy Borg]

Nick, you believe that we belong to God. Many don't, and it's not enough to pass them off as hopeless denizen's of Plato's cave.

God is a matter of interpretation, and every other theist will have a unique conception.

Then again, I don't necessarily see atheists floundering in life, lost without a sense of connection. All the "tribes" seem to be doing roughly as well and as badly as each other.

I don't think any of these beliefs matter. They are just "cheats", ways of traversing the many challenges of life. Whatever works for you.

So God works for you, Nick.

It's the universe for Poetic Universe (unsurprisingly, given his or her moniker).

I don't think so grandly, myself. I find the scale and scope of the Earth and Sun completely mind-melting in themselves (itself??). I look into the sky and know I am like a fish looking at the top of the water, not on the Earth but in it, a part of it. Such a perspective grounds me morally, as I like the idea of being a relatively harmonious part of the Earth that respects and tries to get along with other parts of the world, be they human or otherwise. That's my "cheat", I suppose.

[Nick_A]

Nick, you believe that we belong to God. Many don't, and it's not enough to pass them off as hopeless denizen's of Plato's cave.

God is a matter of interpretation, and every other theist will have a unique conception.

Then again, I don't necessarily see atheists floundering in life, lost without a sense of connection. All the "tribes" seem to be doing roughly as well and as badly as each other.

I don't think any of these beliefs matter. They are just "cheats", ways of traversing the many challenges of life. Whatever works for you.

So God works for you, Nick.

It's the universe for Poetic Universe (unsurprisingly, given his or her moniker).

I don't think so grandly, myself. I find the scale and scope of the Earth and Sun completely mind-melting in themselves (itself??). I look into the sky and know I am like a fish looking at the top of the water, not on the Earth but in it, a part of it. Such a perspective grounds me morally, as I like the idea of being a relatively harmonious part of the Earth that respects and tries to get along with other parts of the world, be they human or otherwise. That's my "cheat", I suppose.

Nick, you believe that we belong to God. Many don't, and it's not enough to pass them off as hopeless denizen's of Plato's cave.

God is a matter of interpretation, and every other theist will have a unique conception.

The word God seems to have a negative and personal connotation. Try using the word "meaning" instead of God. Most experience meaning by societal conditioning. Fame, fortune, pleasure, and prestige satisfy the psychological need for meaning. They belong to the world.

However there is a minority in which these societal attractions are insufficient to supply the inner need for meaning. A person can have acquired fame, fortune, pleasure, prestige, and still have a need to feel meaning. They are attracted to the inner light that originates beyond the world. For want of a better word, they belong to God.

[Pattern-chaser]

The question of the thread asks if you know of anyone with the humility who has experienced that regardless of what they know (facts), and the opinions they argue over, in reality they understand nothing? Do you know of such people?

As we grow in knowledge and wisdom, most of us come across this concept, and immediately accept its truth. To one ready to read it, it's obvious. So yes, I know of many such people. Many of the philosophers here have passed that point. It's not that we literally understand nothing, it's that we understand so very little of what there is to be understood. This is not a mystery. Far from it. Your words imply that it is some kind of mystery, that no-one has heard of. Have I got that right?

[Pattern-chaser]

Your OP says this:

As we’ve all witnessed, debates over the existence and relevance of God within society boils down to those who blindly believe and those who blindly deny...

...and I disagree that this issue "boils down" to the two extremes you mention - blind belief or blind denial. There are those who have an interest in these matters, but are not as blind as you describe. There are those, as I said before, "who are not blind, who are aware of what they know, and what they don't". And by this I mean that such people are aware of their own ignorance - to the extent that any of us can be - but seek to learn. I hope that I am such a person.

Perhaps you understand the concept of debates over the existence of a God concept differently than I do. My experience is that debates are not designed for truth but a means to express the imagined self importance of superiority.

Debates as you describe them consist of pointless willy-waving. I consider them a waste of time. In RL, there are two types of 'debate'. One is adversarial, and exists only for the purpose of egotistical point-scoring. The other is co-operative, aimed toward learning. For myself, I try to ignore the former entirely.

A discussion could serve the purpose of understanding but a debate over God concepts just invites emotional hostility. So maybe I’m just reacting to my experiences with this word.

Perhaps so.

It has also been proven to me through the experiences of brilliant men and women that the more they know, the more they realize they don’t know so cannot understand. So in reality, they know nothing. If this is what you meant, then I read you wrong.

For clarity, I would say "...they know little or nothing", but I agree with you, and yes, you read me wrong.

Wrong on both counts. My own religious/spiritual position is that I am a Gaian Daoist. I believe that God is the 'soul' of the universe, just as the physical universe is Her 'body'. I believe that God is universal, and an emergent property of the universe, not a creator-God. So my beliefs actually gel quite well with Albert's "cosmic religious feeling".

We both believe that the universe is the body of God. However you believe the universe is “an emergent property of the universe” while I believe the universe is an emergent property of the consciousness of our source beyond time and space which Plotinus described as the ONE. It is harmful to debate since it invites negativity but can be discussed by seekers of truth

There is no harm in co-operative debate, the only sort of debate worth the trouble. But I can't quite see what you're getting at. Could you expand on the text I've highlighted, please? In particular, is "our source" God?