A Statement To Be Evaluated

[osiris]

The major failing of all religion lies in the attempt of those who interpret it to set something outside of existance that they may revere as its source. Yet all of this is, quite plainly, in and of it"self". If one can accept this, there is no reason to inflict suffering, but to refrain in "self" interest.

disections and dissertations?

much love :)

[Professor Jumbo]

While this is indeed an idea meritourious of further discussion I think that you'll have to tells us more here. Your conclusion seems to be a non-sequitur at the momment. While your conclusion may seem obvious to you, do not assume that it is obvious to everybody. You have not included your thought which occured between your premise and conclusion. In other words, how did you arrive at your conlusion?

Of course I am assuming that this is your original statement. If instead this is a statement from somebody other than yourself, please include more of their thoughts on the matter.

[osiris]

tsk, tsk. what makes you so sure there is inherent within this, a conclusion? ;)

i am simply furnishing this, a brash generalization, in order that there may be many points from which it may attacked. i use so few words, because to overintellectualize it would only drive it farther from my point. i am trying to escape the ambiguity of words, and cut to something deeper.

almost a zen concept.

can i hit you with my staff now?

lol.

much love :)

p.s. bla bla bla bla bla bla bla...

[bradofcentralpa]

for at least christianity, perhaps other religions, it does seem that a major failing is separation of God and man. by making interaction a one-way street (except for our actions' effects on God's will, rather than His separate reality),the importance of self interest decreases. I don't know if there's ever a "reason to inflict suffering," but presuming there may be, yeah, the point in inflicting suffering diminishes. Unfortunately so does the point in joyful living, at least for religious reasons.
When a religion defines a higher reality/entity/power as connected to the individual, the reverence to the self should be more accepted, since the individual's self defines, in part, the greater power. 'selfish' oulooks may be more prone to cause suffering, but the religious side of the outlook gives more incentive to act altruistically.

[sky_pink]

The question is whether or not there must be a cause for everything. Logic insists that theremust be at least something that has no cause; we perceive, however, that everything HAS a cause. A contradiction that is difficult to solve.

[spinelli]

Fantastic point sky pink
Maybe logic is the representative of the physical and its limitations
And the perception that we have, that not everything has a cause, that there is a God source that goes no further. The cause that has no cause. is the representative of the non-physical connection we have. The knowledge that goes beyond our earthly mind, and its logical limitation. The knowing that can sometimes be scientifically unexplainable, the knowing that we need to survive.

[osiris]

ok. but what if that source is literally, in every term, nothing?

back to square one?

lol.

much love :)

[osiris]

to amend a bit my last statement- it seems that beings must have a cause, so how can the causeless cause be a being, other than that being the way some relate to it via our perception? i mean, even if one believes in a god, if they can't see past that god, how can they know there is nothing beyond it, and if there is "nothing" beyond it.... damned words. i've already gone too far. lol.


much love :)

[bradofcentralpa]

the question of causality is interesting because it ties the big and the small...creation, levels of existence, god/man, etc. versus the question of free will and what to do with it if we have it. are we aiming to define the different levels and ordes of cause, if in fact cause actually exists, then find the implications?
osiris: yep, if everything has, as you said, come from nothing, then it suggests that cause doesn't exist, right? i like that though...it seems to give more of a chance of free will...that cause is the illusion, and will is the reality, puts more emphasis on the self (to connect it back to the original topic).

[osiris]

i don't know that i would say it suggests the nonexistance of cause, but rather that cause and effect are ultimately a product of will and will naught, but a manifestation of unceasing existance. we have become so enraptured with the idea of our immortality that we consider our ego that which is immortal.

let's examine that word: immortal, but merely from an etymological standpoint. im- means not and mortal means "subject to death". so this really means "not subject to death". in my admittedly limited observation of this universe, which is really all any of us have to go by, the only thing not subject to decay and death is energy. all the forms it takes, on the other hand, inevitably perish in the act of transformation. if we are to suppose this was all created by some intellegent being, we must at once admit that even this being's intelligence is a form of that energy, and "he" too, or any substance he may possess, is only a form of it, as are we. the energy never ends. it does not need consciousness to exist. it simply is. that things manifest from it, and within it, that develop a consciousness, and even perhaps create other things that have some form of consciousness, should be no surprise. that any of these forms of consciousness should be revered and worshipped as the creator of all existance, as preceeding that energy, when it must be inherent within them for them to even be capable of creation, is frankly quite appalling to me, and seems to me, at least, the source of the much lamented "suffering".

someone in another thread here is talking about hare krishna, the vedas and whatnot. like "god", these are just words and symbols, manifest representations of that energy. but that energy itself is beyond them, and the accessing of it is not exclusive to any one representation of it. indeed. the access of it is automatic and unceasing with every moment, regardless of whether or not any conscious being is there to regard it and describe it, though the way it is regarded and described by conscious beings undoubtedly has an effect on the forms it continues to take. if we want to make this form we have taken last, want to make it more enjoyable, it is up to us. that is our responsibility. the energy, it does not care. it has no consciousness.

even the word "energy". just a word.

so you see why in my original post i tried to be as general as possible while still conveying this point? have i succeeded at all in doing so?

much love :)

[sky_pink]

ok. but what if that source is literally, in every term, nothing?

back to square one?

lol.

much love :)
'Nothing' cannot contain any seeds of something, because then it is not nothing.

[osiris]

ah, but if it seems plausable that there is a causeless cause, than why is it not that said cause is nothing at all.

and if you are to say "nothing is the cause of everything" it really just comes back to the point that everything is existant in and of it "self", no beginning or end, no source, just... (t)here. *shudders with delight of revel* :)

much love

[sky_pink]

I kind of like the physics idea of all this. There's no 'before' the Big Bang, because time didn't exist then. Still, doesn't get us rid of the problem we don't have the impulse for the Big Bang... oh well, no theory is perfect! :D

[Professor Jumbo]

tsk, tsk. what makes you so sure there is inherent within this, a conclusion? ;)
Your statement "If one can accept this, there is no reason to inflict suffering, but to refrain in "self" interest." Is, by definiton, a conclusion.

i am simply furnishing this, a brash generalization, in order that there may be many points from which it may attacked. i use so few words, because to overintellectualize it would only drive it farther from my point. i am trying to escape the ambiguity of words, and cut to something deeper.
Ah, but in being so very general and dare I say vague, you are inescapably trapped in an ambiguity still greater than which you have wished to avoid. You have furnished us with a statement so general that it can be taken to refer to almost every topic in religion, metaphysics, and epistemology. Your statement may be attacked, as you say, from many points preciecely beacuse it is fantastically ambiguous. Use of more precise and descriptive language would alleviate this problem.

can i hit you with my staff now?
Only if you are able to provide precise and unambiguous reasons for doing so. :)

[Professor Jumbo]

On cause and effect. (Sure, I'll play)

Now in terms of human perception:
Attempts to find, through logical deduction, the "first cause" will invariably end in failure. One or more of the three skeptic objections will come along and eat you up before you are even aware that it has been stalking you.

The laws of cause and effect, our knowledge of which is a result of data gather by the senses, are merely an outgrowth of human interpretation of the world. In the same way we talk about color and brightness, pitch and tone, sweetness and bitterness, sensations of hot and cold, putrid and musky aromas however, none of these have existence outside of the human mind, or if they do we will be forever unable to know it. Yet we cannot stop ourselves from precieving in this way save by damaging or altering the organs reponsible for our perception. Cause and effect are much the same. We cannot but percieve in terms of them yet we are incapable of finding data to suggest that they have any a priori existence.


Now in terms of a Deity:
If there is some omnipotent creator deity, i.e., one who created literally everything (though not necessarily directly) we must assume then that this deity also created the laws of cause and effect. If this deity created the laws of cause and effect then all such questions as to the source or cause of this deity itself are rendered moot.

Now in terms of mere existence
Something from nothing? Yet how can this be? There is no such thing as nothing, at least not in the sense of ultimate nothingness. Even if existence itself is an "illusion" it must be an illusion in a mind of some kind for mind is the only residence of illusion. Perhaps then that mind is itself an illusion. Hmm. . no, that illusory mind would then have be in another mind of some type; et cetra ad infinitum.

Now then, illusion itself debunks the theory of nothing, for illusion has its own very solid existence. Were illusion genuinely nothing at all then illusion would and could never occur at all, in fact we would have no concept of it at all if it were nothing. Illusion exists then, at the very lest, as a concept. Individual illusions exist as individual or multiple concepts.

[sassure]

We humans, as well as God, are ultimately merely forms of energy. Energy is indestructible, so it has always existed, though at times it is altered in form and in how it is perceived.

It is said that perhaps a lightning bolt hitting the ocean ignited the first forms of intelligent energy, the rudiment of what we have come to call Life. But the lightning itself was energy. The resultant Life was therefore energy too.

So little has changed in substance, but so much has changed in form.....

[know1nozme]

Thoughts on Plato’s Rational “Illusory” Universe: The Cave metaphor and an argument for the empirical.

Much of this may already be known to you, but if you will kindly indulge me a moment, I think I will eventually get to something meaningful.

Plato saw the universe we live in as an imitation of the “Truth,” which was embodied in what he called “Forms.” Plato’s Forms were supposed to be perfect and everything that we experienced in the material world was an imperfect imitation of those forms. To illustrate this he used a metaphor which likened our universe to a cave. We are prisoners in this cave, forced to face a wall. Light comes through the mouth of the cave, casting shadows of Plato’s perfect Forms onto the wall. These shadows are our only experience with the Forms.

It is the Forms that Plato praises above all else. The discovery of Truth is the principle by which Plato lives. The Forms are man's deliverance and only through them may humanity redeem itself. The Forms are “God,” they are all that gives life meaning. Nothing matters except for the realization of the Forms. It should be the fundamental goal of every man's every action. Every man should be willing to sacrifice his entire country if they stand in the way of his realization of Truth.

But what are the Forms? Plato does not know. His writings do not offer any concrete description. All that we know of them is that they exist and that they are “perfect.” Plato's solution to the abyss of Greek despair was the logical, rational process of inquiry whereby Greek thought would eventually realize x.

Plato is appealing to something that is beyond humanity’s (including his own) ability to comprehend.

Problem - Plato’s solution is no solution because the Forms remain a mystery. Plato can never pin down what any of the Forms are. Fine, then, suppose we assume the Forms exist. One cannot live by them unless one knows/understands what they are. A concept cannot offer salvation if the meaning of the concept is not comprehended. The Forms are meaningless to us owing to Plato's own lack of knowledge about them. Plato may as well have been spouting gibberish because he can offer no meaning behind the word Form.

Now, not only does Plato admit to not knowing the Forms themselves, but even if he did, they could not be communicated. The Forms, are transcendent concepts and that means that they also transcend language. Since words are the tools of thought and we cannot put these thoughts into words, we cannot make an appeal to them. Until we experience an objective “Good” any appeal will be empty and the world will remain tragic and indifferent. One does not know that one is in “the Cave.” What is beyond the cave is beyond the cave and until we have understanding of the transcendental, the cave must be our primary concern. We might as well accept this and simply be what we are. Though it is mostly tragic, the cave can still arouse happiness in us. The trick is not to escape the cave, but to rejoice in its beauty and not drown ourselves in the despair of its tragedy. If we rebel against those aspects of the cave (or, more to the point, those aspects of ourselves within the cave) which we do not like, we can make it a world which we are both proud and happy to be a part of. This rebellion must come in the form of something human, a form that we can understand and use to resist the misery of this world. It must come from our interaction with the empirical world around us and it must communicate our thoughts concerning that empirical world on a transcendent level. There is a word, however ambiguous, which describes such a rebellion. It is ART.

[osiris]

"You have furnished us with a statement so general that it can be taken to refer to almost every topic in religion, metaphysics, and epistemology. Your statement may be attacked, as you say, from many points preciecely beacuse it is fantastically ambiguous."
-prof. jumbo

exactly!

"Use of more precise and descriptive language would alleviate this problem."

and i think i attempted to do so... did it alleviate the problem?

and as for your suppositions about the nonexistance of nothing(ooh, that's so deliciously icky!)... no thing is merely the lack of some thing. we must be capable of percieving the lack of some thing's existance in order to percieve it's existance. so, in essence, this makes no thing some thing that we percieve! which leads me back to the point that one does not come from the other, necessarily, but that they are symbiotically simultaneous! no, this does not compute well with logic, but as kno1 so astutely demonstrated with plato, and as history and the conflicting and coalescing interpretations of life it demonstrates, as well as those demonstrated here by us, demonstrate(triple demonstration!), logic cannot and has not yet even approached an plausible explanation of any possible origins of existance, by its own standards.

and as far as deity is concerned, it is all good and well to say that said deity created the laws of this universe, and that he may not necessarily be bound by them, but then... well, that doesn't really give us any clear answer as to what this deity's actual motivations in creating the universe and his intentions in perpetuating it may be. all of our accounts, or beliefs, concerning any deity, are, as with all of our observations, limited to our perceptions, as you so astutely put, jumbo. where does this leave us, with so many distinctly percieved deities to choose from, all of them claiming that they have created all of this, or at least their followers claiming that they have claimed so, or done so? if any one of these is to be believed, THE REST MUST BE LIARS! and yet all of the experiences of the various subscribers to the various religions can be said to be equally fantastically euphoric and transcendental. there is no evidence that supports one over the other or any at all.

and kno1- art. yes, art. ah, for what if it is all art? what if it is all just a continual act of symbiotic, synchronistic creation? what does that say about the disastrous effects of religions based on fear, of science, based on cold empirical analyzation, of philosophies based on indifference? i see what your sayin, bro, and i dig it.

much love :)

[osiris]

see i think that the other problem i run into when i say "something comes from nothing" is that ya'll take that i mean that something comes from some tangible void. can a void be tangible? i won't say that such a paradox is impossible, though paradox is by its nature supposed to be, but really i am just saying in a different way "there is no cause, not even a causeless cause".


hm.

much love :)

[Professor Jumbo]

and as far as deity is concerned, it is all good and well to say that said deity created the laws of this universe, and that he may not necessarily be bound by them, but then... well, that doesn't really give us any clear answer as to what this deity's actual motivations in creating the universe and his intentions in perpetuating it may be.
Movtivations? Intentions? Are not these things possessions of high order biological entities? Do you know for certain that this hypothetical deity has motivations and intentions, or even that it is self aware? Take the God of Spinoza for example.

Besides all of that, do not motivation and intention imply cause and effect? So if such a deity had motivations and intentions wouldn't it be that case that said deity would be subject to cause and effect?

all of our accounts, or beliefs, concerning any deity, are, as with all of our observations, limited to our perceptions, as you so astutely put, jumbo.
Yet this does not mean that the deity is merely the sum of our perceptions of it.

where does this leave us, with so many distinctly percieved deities to choose from, all of them claiming that they have created all of this, or at least their followers claiming that they have claimed so, or done so? if any one of these is to be believed, THE REST MUST BE LIARS! there is no evidence that supports one over the other or any at all.
Or perhaps they are all wrong. It could be that such perceptions of deity are products of disordered minds. Another option is that our experiences of so many seemingly separate deities have in fact been experience of the same deity clouded by individual bias. Or perhaps they have been experiences of parts of a greater deity. Yet another option is that we are being fooled by demons, governemnt brain implants, spacealien mind control beams, and etcetra.

Where all of this leaves us (at least for the time being) is in the land of humanism and exestentialism. Either that or blind faith and doublethink.

[know1nozme]

Where all of this leaves us (at least for the time being) is in the land of humanism and exestentialism. Either that or blind faith and doublethink.
There is a third option that I can come up with, there may be more yet. What about the land of radical pragmatic empiricsm, where our individual conception of reality is the mutable sum of the concrete experience and knowledge gained added to belief in that which cannot be proven (i.e. whatever works for you is, for you, "Truth").

[osiris]

well, jumbo, that is my point- if it is not a being with motivations and intentions it is not technically a deity. A deity would necessarily be a manifestation of divinity in some communicable form, not divinity itself, or at least that was the sense in which i was trying to imply it. Can a deity be trusted by beings inferior to it, in power? an interesting question. we must of course be pawns for such a being. but nothing more? is it wise to swear allegiance to such a being, let alone our eternal "soul", whatever that be? not to mention that any antithetical being that might be at least playing the pretense of enemy, the feared scapegoat, would be equally as untrustworthy. The possibilities here are endless. I guess it comes down to what you are willing to accept. I accept nothing. In doing so, am i helping to leave the possibilities open, despite the narrow avenues i must travel in my flesh? In accepting any one ideology over all others, are others limiting the possibilities? A kno1 is saying, it seems to me we may be the sum of many aspects of mind. One cannot simply say "it is all illusion and perception" but anyone viewing it from conscious perception yet consulting others pov's and finding such disagreement cannot think it all merely empirical. well, they can think whatever they choose, but...

we are starting to get to something here. please keep on.

much love :)

[know1nozme]

Perhaps we are unable to determine a single answer to the "Deity" problem BECAUSE we have not taken polytheism into account as a serious theological theory.

I don't mean to throw a wrench into the works here, but polytheism doesn't fall into the trap of having every deity claiming to be "The Creator." It simply recognizes that there are many forces at work in the universe and that we human beings cannot easily wrap our minds around the concept of a single deity when it seems so obvious that these forces work in different ways which to our minds are often contradictory.

We are trying to see the forest as a whole and forgetting that it is made up of trees. We recognize that the universe is a highly complex system made up of inter-related systems. Polytheists (at least modern ones) give each system a mask and a name and ascribe to it certain "personality traits" which describe it's relationship within the whole.

There are several distinct archetypes which can be seen at work both as forces within the universe and as aspects of human personality. Polytheists recognize a mirrored structure between the outside (physical) and the inside (psychological) forces.

Such a system often breaks down into irrational nonsense, if overanalyzed, of course, but then, so does every other belief system. That is the existential conundrum. Yet is it another view of the universe, a different window from which to see the workings of reality, and as such it shouldn't be discarded outright. There may be something to learn from this.

[osiris]

With polytheism, so it seems to me, the trust issue is compounded exponentially. it also begs the question, what is a god, really? hm? just a being superior in power. but in compassion? sounds like tyrrany to me, or if not outright tyrrany, too much opportunity for it. oh, i understand polytheism quite well, but i will leave that, an enigma.

much love :)

[know1nozme]

With polytheism, so it seems to me, the trust issue is compounded exponentially. it also begs the question, what is a god, really?

Yes it does. Have we given enough time to this question? What is a god, REALLY?

Can anyone define "deity" to everyone else's satisfation? I doubt it. Again, we are left with a concept which trancends our ability to comprehend. Like Plato's "Forms," we are discussing a thing without any real clue as to what that thing is. Why do we concern ourselves with this?

It cannot be observed directly, tested, proven, etc. "Deity" is a matter of faith alone. The existence or non-existence of such a trancendent concept is a matter which will not be solved this side of the grave. Period.

Which brings us back to pragmatic empiricism, eh?

[sky_pink]

Have you noticed that, the more deities there are in a religion, the more like humans they are? Pretty strange. If there is one god, he is absolute in all aspects (absolute love, everything good, sometimes everything evil also). If there are many, they are limited in who they are and what they can do.

[osiris]

well, now, kno1, if a god is just a being superior in power to a human being, than many gods may have existed, and yet all of them may have died. or maybe they were just extraordinary human beings. doesn't hercules strike you as the typical big dumb jock? strong, maybe with a big heart, fearsome to other men. they say we are larger as a race now than we once were... a man in those times that was six and a half feet and built like a brick shithouse may very well have been considered half a god... a guy the size of shaq, a giant, you know?

another thing that has crossed my mind is the amount of psychadelic hallucinagens people may have been unwittingly ingesting those days, via mold and fungi- what kind of bush was burning, when moses heard it talk? in all seriousness, lsd is just a concentrated form of ergot, a mold that grows on rye bread(i think it's rye). some have attributed the witch trial paranoia to that, why not the hebrew slaves... their myths are quite plainly at least partially rehashed from their egyptian masters and adapted to their own hopes and dreams... would they have understood then the psychoactive properties of certain mushrooms, or certain cactus buttons? eh? if i had a dime for every sykonaut that has told me about their conversations with "god"(or the "devil", or both) while on one or another drug, i would be quite well-off. and everyone of those were raised in a backround related to a certain monotheistic dogma, so they were pre-disposed to that. I'll go so far as to say programmed with it from birth. conscious hallucinations of subconsciously implanted ideological thought processes, catalyzed by the substance ingested?

and sky, you make an interesting point. that is kind of where a concept like jung's archetypes might come into play, though in a more loosely interpreted manner... one must consider as well the famed "mysteries". to me it seems quite obvious that these were literally programs meant to brainwash people. as to the intent of the initiators i will not venture, for that gets hairy, but if one studies what we know about the mysteries of ancient egypt, greece, freemasonry, the ismaelis, and countless others there are far too many striking similarities not to see a formula, a pattern, simply ebing adapted to different cultures... but again, here we are met with ambiguous origins. where, and more importantly, why did it begin?

and on pragmatic empiricism... there are far too many antithetical events to which i have been a party, and a vehemently skeptical one at that, to accept that completely. but they can be rationalized... yet in so many cases, the rationalizations are more fantastically improbable! we're stepping in shit now... lol.

much love :)

[sky_pink]

A pattern exists indeed, but why assume it has been adapted by people? You mentioned Jung's archetypes, and they manifest themselves very strongly in almost all religions, especially those that are very primitive (here I don't meen simple or inferior, but based on feeling rather than thinking).

[themnax]

death being a ceasation of tangable function, it is meaningless to say that anything nontangable ever does.

now i have no problem with the possible, even probable existence of nontangable forces and beings, there is certainly no natural requirement for them to not exist. what i seriously doubt is that they or their existence makes anything, even neccessarily themselves infallable, and likewise that anything in its right mind would ever have the slightest desire to be worsipped, whatever its form or power.
the comonality of archtypes neither proves nor disproves anything. though it is highly suggestive that a human mind works like a human mind, as much in one culture, time, place, way of life, and so on, as another.
now it does seems to me that the irrational nontangable beings with which priesthoods have always threatened us, must be either pretty rare or not especialy powerful, for us to have gone on existing as long as we have, that or our existence has up till now gone undetected by them.
on the other hand there is absolutely nothing to rule out the possibility of one or more nontangable beings, and possibly at least one of them unimaginably powerful, loveing us and wishing us well, whatever else it may or may not have created and or be.
it is also of course perfectly possible that everything anyone has ever believed may be in some way or sense at least partialy true, and just as possible that none of it bears the slightest resemblence to whatever nontangable reality may actualy be.
whatever may turn out to be the case with that, what seems to me far more likely then not, is that whatever actualy is, will turn out to be a whole lot wierder, then anyone has ever immagined.
wierder, but for anything to be any scarrier then we are capable of scaring ourselves would have to go a good bit of a ways.
so my heart goes out to the love i feel from what i don't know when i don't attempt to give names to it.

[Andy73]

""The major failing of all religion lies in the attempt of those who interpret it to set something outside of existance that they may revere as its source. Yet all of this is, quite plainly, in and of it"self". If one can accept this, there is no reason to inflict suffering, but to refrain in "self" interest.""



In other words faith

[know1nozme]

It suddenly occurs to me that I have been espousing pragmatic empiricism on this thread (and in a few on the old forums) with only the most cursory explanation of what it is or how it operates. Rather than post a long explanation/definition of it on this post I would like to turn your attention to a lecture delivered by William James, the greatest philosopher born in the United States and, incidentally, the founder of modern cognitive theory.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/james.htm

[osiris]

A pattern exists indeed, but why assume it has been adapted by people? You mentioned Jung's archetypes, and they manifest themselves very strongly in almost all religions, especially those that are very primitive (here I don't meen simple or inferior, but based on feeling rather than thinking).
i tend to think archetypes are evolved from the first practical needs of developing humanity, and that our unwillingness to give up the ones that are now less (or ir)relevant to our current way of living reeks of what many people commonly refer to as addiction... not sure just where i am going with that, but i feel something...

much love :)

[osiris]

""The major failing of all religion lies in the attempt of those who interpret it to set something outside of existance that they may revere as its source. Yet all of this is, quite plainly, in and of it"self". If one can accept this, there is no reason to inflict suffering, but to refrain in "self" interest.""



In other words faith
no. not just "faith", but "faith in what?" this will lead me into know1's pragmatic empriricism which i think dovetails nicely with themnax's comments, as well as the sidebar about archetypes mentioned above...

this is how pragmatic empiricism seems to me: evolution through the juxtaposition of revolution. i can't help but think of soundwaves, phase cancellation. what is rendered null and what is positively reinforced? does the result harmonize with our ultimate aims? indeed, what are our ultimate aims? is it "pragmatic" for us to externalize the source of existance, and therefore ultimately externalize accountability for our existance via hierarchal belief systems? Yes, you can say, god gave us the free will.... to choose to obey him or refute him, which will have one of these two outcomes: destruction or preservation. But immediately accountability for the ultimate outcome is shifted back away from us, and we are left with a mere ultimatum. This seems far less than pragmatic. If our evolution is resultant of the juxtapositions of the revolutions of our thoughts and deeds, than indeed it is barbaric, for we are shaping a world where possibility is limited. We are eschewing any possible failsafe against our annihilation. Where we have supposed to save ourselves from despair, we have relinquished any hope.

we have set the stage to cancel ourselves out.

that's my further contribution. care to add?

much love :)

[sky_pink]

Well, you can't just give up archetypes. Perhaps that's the reason why religion has always been and will probably always be a most important part of the human society...

[osiris]

i am suggesting transformation, not utter annihilation. though those things can be synonomous...

much love :)

[know1nozme]

is it "pragmatic" for us to externalize the source of existance, and therefore ultimately externalize accountability for our existance via hierarchal belief systems? Yes, you can say, god gave us the free will.... to choose to obey him or refute him, which will have one of these two outcomes: destruction or preservation. But immediately accountability for the ultimate outcome is shifted back away from us, and we are left with a mere ultimatum. This seems far less than pragmatic.
I think I see where it is you are coming from. So it is the idea of an ultimatum which puts you off religion, Osiris, is that the case? “Believe or be damned,” just pisses you off. Makes you want to say “F*ck it, then, I guess I’m damned!” Well… I guess I can see your point there. That is tyranny, and I must admit to a certain “live free or die” streak which runs through my veins as well. I’m sure that there are many others who feel that way. What I gather from this line for reasoning is that (and I may be completely off base here) you see pragmatism as a sort of cowardice, then.

I, on the other hand, feel no such ultimatum. I feel purpose. When I look upon the universe it is with wonder at it’s beauty, not confusion at the meaninglessness of it all. My pragmatism is a philosophy of adaptation not as a response to any perceived threat, but an adaptation of my empirical understanding of the universe to the undeniable feeling of beauty and purpose and love which I cannot rationally or logically explain. I refuse to believe that feeling this way makes me weak or insane so I must believe that it comes from something else... my higher power(s).

I am not rendering up responsibility for my life or accountability for my actions, rather I am ascribing a stronger meaning to the choices that I make. I am an artist. My life is an art work. This universe is a cooperative art work, of which I am a part. A series of layered improvisations of incredible complexity and beauty which I do not claim to understand entirely, but with a power which I can feel and see and touch every time I learn something new. Every moment I am reborn from the experiences of the previous moment. And it is good.

Does that make any sense?

[gdkumar]

Dear Know1nozme,

Your thoughts are wonderful, you are a charming philosopher.
You are so rich in your analytical thoughts and writing !
Wish you all the best, may God fill you up with everything
that you wish.

With lots of love..........Kumar.

[osiris]

"I am not rendering up responsibility for my life or accountability for my actions, rather I am ascribing a stronger meaning to the choices that I make. I am an artist. My life is an art work."
-know1

this is exactly how i feel. and you are off-base in your thinking that i have a problem with this pragmatism. i do not consider it cowardly in the least bit. seems very constructive, indeed. it is the empiricism part of which i am not so sure.

you see, i have come to believe(and am admittedly still skeptical of my own beliefs) that reality is malleable and amorphous, and is shaped by both random interactions of momentous causes and by the convictions of the conscious wills that have become existant as a result of those interactions. this all seems very paradoxical and will most likely aggravate both your empiricism and your pragmatism, but from this it must follow that in order for us to both preserve the possibility for change, and therefore the very stability of our existance, and for us to be able to transcend the inherent tyrrany of ideological hierarchies, someone must stand and take the beating that comes form saying "fuck that bullshit." someone must fuel the engine of revolution that drives the machine of evolution.

so therefore, in order for us to evolve to a better existance, some of us must take it upon ourselves to suffer for the greater good. believe me when i say i hate to admit this, but it seems unalienably true to me, from my experience as a spirit manifesting in many forms. what i am getting at is that it is all good for people to sit around and absolve their personal suffering in the absorbtion into "god", but it does not seem to me that this takes suffering away.

it seems to me, that this is only ignorance of suffering in general, a lack of compassion for our fellow human beings. it seems to me that despite how so many like to say "it will all be just fine, we die anyway, it's all part of god's plan, everything will turn out fine in the end," and any other number of comforting moral platitudes, no matter how pragmatic they may be to our apparent empirical needs, that if there is no beginning or end, if there is no almighty loving creator, and we truly are constantly shaping our own destiny, than, though this may be comforting for the individual that can disconnect themselves from it all, this does not stop children from starving, people from being violated, tyrants from assuming control of that collective destiny, and someone has to at least defy these things in thought, has to give up that physical body and mental well-being that you all seem to think is so meaningless anyway for the cause of the greater good. and from experience, i know it is a thankless job, and i expect no gratitude, but for the sake of the transformation of the "universe", "reality", "existance", "divinity" or whatever you want to call it, to something more than a bunch of passified, brainwashed animals being lead mindlessly to utter annihilation, i stand here, now, and forever give my energy, of which this mortal body is indeed a mere representation, to this:

FUCK IDEOLOGY.

sincerely,
many blessings, much love, healing vibrations :)

[osiris]

and mind you, if you read actual hostility in any of the above statement, than you cannot feel the utter passion of the love of my self-sacrifice. i have said this before: i am not looking for converts, for this would indeed be counterproductive to my goal. i am not looking even to change your mind. keep doing what you are doing. keep believing what you are believing. walk your path. you will inevitably see what this means, and through your own ministrations.

metaphilosophical engineer,
signing off.

much love :)

[know1nozme]

Kumar, thank you for your kind affirmations. Strange, but as I wrote my last post, I felt that I would be hearing form you soon.

Osirs, I do understand what it is that you are communicating, I think. Allow me to introduce you to another voice/mask/higher power whose art sometimes speaks to/through me:

I am Prometheus, chained to a rock - with foreknowledge of what is to come, but powerless to do anything about it. Daily an eagle tears out my liver, causing me great pain and removing my ability to filter out all of the poisons which seek to invade me; and although I am immortal and my liver will regenerate each night, the poison remains.



I fear that through the poisons, I am being subverted. I am inundated with the poisonous fear of what I see before me, of my own powerlessness to stop it, of the thoughts which invade me and tell me that when I do make the effort I will only make things worse for myself and for those whom I love. That although I carry in my head a possible thesis/antithesis/synthesis to that which causes my pain, that it will be turned to serve the purposes of tyrants. The dialectical process is fraught with dangers. Is there a difference between the poison which courses through my body and the chains which bind me to this rock? Sometimes I wonder…



Such is the tragedy of Prometheus, bound.


Make of that what you will. I am among those who must put a mask and a name upon those forces which affect my life and my perspective on reality. In the last few years, the symbols surrounding the plight of Prometheus have been particularly tangible for me. Despite the pain I often feel, though, it is the beauty... the love (with the help of voices like Kumar's) which keeps me going and gives me hope. Occasionally, the chains dissolve - if only for an instant - and I know why I must continue.

[know1nozme]

OOooh. :confused: Uumm... Did I write that? Time to get my meds checked. Sorry, I usually try to be more coherent than that. :o

[gdkumar]

Dear Know1nozme,

Pain of Prometheus.... There could not be a better example than this. We are all, like you, suffering from this. Chains and the vultures go away temporarily
but the poison and the pain remains. But we never say die and live on.

Thank you my dear beautiful soul. I always think of you as "Anandamayee". It pains to think that the modern-age confusion and curse has not spared anybody. If you consider all ages, you will understand that everybody had to go through this grind of pain and poison. I suppose, this is what is known as 'Divine Game'.

The wise people have had been in the quest of a solution to this....to go above and beyond these sufferings. That is why the knowledge of body and soul has been so important. Once you know that you are not merely the body but the soul and that you would exist even after death....all the problems get over. You would still feel the pain and suffering of yourself and others but it would not disturb tranquility and serenity of your mind. Because you would for sure know and realize that all the pains and sufferings are to the bodies and not to the souls.

The subject is such that one can go on and on but let me try and stop here.
I understand that there are scopes of lots of debates on this but please we have talked enough, now let us sit, follow the wise advices of those who have /had attained that stage and try to find out the authenticity and the truth. We should talk only after that. After all, we should understand that so many from different parts of the world,over the ages, did not tell us lies.

With lots of love and prayers............Kumar.

[osiris]

lol.

like existance itself, our words are hollow.

despite the fact that you may think you have saved your self or anyone from suffering by being "tranquil", it is not those who stand around gabbing about religious wisdom that spare anyone a moment of suffering in the eternal grind of life and death, but those who ACT in the ultimate manifestation to effect a change, those who physically hold out a hand to help the fallen to their feet. i learned that yesterday. it is intangible deified energy forces and ideas that help people to ignore suffering. it is people that help other people to deal with it constructively, through action.

though i am amused to find the waves had aligned and the resultant manifestation that ensued was an option to sit on my ass or get up and act. when will ya'll come out of your shells and take that final step, and shed the chains of prometheus?

oh, but i see the fabric of cacoons stretching and breaking!

IT'S ALIVE! HAHAHAHAHA!

much love :)

[gdkumar]

Dear Osiris,

Thanks for your another complicated post.

I at least provided you with something to lol about, but what are you doing?
You talk about others' suffering, action and breaking Prometheus-chain but in practice you are being a sadist,adding to our suffering and beating about the bush.

May I know what you are planning and what actions you are contemplating to alleviate the eternal grind of life,suffering and death ? Have you ever seen any true yogi/saint/sage, are you familiar with their daily routines, do you even know what they live for even after achieving salvation ?

You talk about sitting and being gabby, it is not them but we...people like you and me. We do little but only talk, jump and behave like great soldiers and saviours. But alas! we forget that soldiers need shields and swords. Let us
first of all learn to talk and write nicely, let us avoid impudence and be meek. That alone can lessen suffering of many to some extent. Then talk about your ideas, do not try to subdue and say you are right and others are wrong.

I am sure, you are hurt. I am very sorry.

With love....................Kumar.

[osiris]

actually, the only reason i sit here and gab right now is because my baby sleeps. i am taking care of her, making sure when she wakes up ready to eat, she will be fed. thus, i have alleviated the possibility that she will starve and die. thus i have taken action to alleviate suffering. it is the little actions that take care of the big ones, on down the line. it is NO ACTION that cares for NOTHING. really, i think you make it more complicated and superficial in your attempt to simplify.

no, i don't know any yogis. i do know and have seen some people do amazing things, via many different mystical and religious channels. but that you might think these parlor tricks alleviate suffering is an assumption.

also, i may in some way be a sadist, when i say FUCK IDEOLOGY. Why? because i hurt people's feelings? maybe so, maybe so. but i make no apologies because, if people don't awaken from the shells of their emotional dreamworlds, or the empty spaces in which they reside to avoid those worlds, there is no hope that they will make this world, which does in some way physically exist and is to some extant real, a better place in which to live, for those of us who have to struggle day to day just to survive and don't have time to concentrate our minds on above mentioned parlor tricks.

this coming from an individual that is stepping out from just such an empty space to find a world in ruin with a bunch of people sitting around smiling at their useless interior reflections, seeing himself in them, knowing the mistakes he's made, effecting a change. i give this for you, my sacrifice. i need not sheild or sword, for i am the shield and i take the blow from the sword with a smile on my face.

like i said, i don't expect you or anyone to see it my way. indeed, as long as you do what you do, it will make it all the more necessary for me to do what i do. the balance is struck.

polite words? i see a lot of people using polite words. i see the same people waiting for us to turn our backs in trust as they finger the blades in their pockets. again, i must insist that we ignore a lot of suffering under the pretense of absolving it.

but here too i see we come from two very different cultural climates. i cannot know much of india. america.. could i convey the disgust with which i regard those who have usurped my home, a home that was indeed usurped by the culture in which i am rooted? capitalism has destroyed our sensibility, our sensitivity. sometimes i wonder if poverty has done the same for those in other parts of the world. its a constant fluctuation of extremes. what hangs in the balance is worth preserving, but maybe you can tell me, what that is?

i see where you are coming from... i do not agree that it is the best way. but, then, if we all agreed, would we even exist?

and all these words, do you take them just for their technical definitions. or do you feel something, this energy i pour into them, swelling from beneath?

sometimes, i wonder, in wonder.

much love, friend :)

[gdkumar]

Dear Osiris,

Thanks for your post.
I can hear your untold story and can feel your pain.
I am extremely sorry, I extend my sincere apology.

I understand somewhere I made a big mistake about you.
You have made me sad again by this post. I wish I could share your
all your feelings truly.

I take this time to convey my love and affection for your baby. I pray
that your baby gets the dry honest ideologies from you and make you happy as she grows older.

I appreciate your honesty that your mind and mouth speak the same thing.
All I wanted to say was that all are not fake, all are not magicians or miracle performers. There are people, unfortunately we do not know many of them, who devote their whole lives and work quietly for the purpose without any publicity. Anyway, we will talk about it some other time. Suddenly I am feeling sick and highly embarrased.

I do apologize again. I am sorry.

With love.......Kumar.

[osiris]

you need not apologize. i wouldn't put myself on the chopping block if i was afraid of pain, bro. i love you, my brother, and just don't want you to believe that suffering can just be made to go away.

and those people who silently go about "the purpose"... their silence should by no means give you the idea that they do not suffer. indeed, but that they deal with their suffering, and turn that energy into something better. minus into plus, not the other way around. action is positive. thought is its negative component. thought into action, not action analyzed by thought, it seems to me is the purpose of divinity, and the constructions of ideologies do so much to subvert that, which is inherent, the automatic magic of life.

hey, i'm new to this, ya know, this is a revelation for me.

and i thank you for taking the time, and sharing it with me, putting your self in the line of fire, of debate.

much love, many blessings, healing vibrations :)

[gdkumar]

"you need not apologize. i wouldn't put myself on the chopping block if i was afraid of pain, bro. i love you, my brother, and just don't want you to believe that suffering can just be made to go away."



Dear Osiris,
Thank you.
That is exactly what I wanted to hear from you. Just a very soft "I love you, my brother."

If sufferings are part of life and can not be made to go away then your love can definitely cover up the ugly face of it. I am a fighter/soldier and that one simple but unfathomable line does wonders for me. That love is my shield and that love is my sword too. It does havoc. I am sure you understand that.

Yesterday I was so upset and just try to feel me now. Your kind words of love have instantly rejuvenated me. I can again take on the whole world. So powerful is love! So powerful it is..........Let all feel it ,know it.

With love..............Kumar.

[osiris]

ha, i dig it, but love without action is naught but an empty ideal.

got to actively take care of those you love...

speaking of which, i smell poopy diapers. lol.

much love :)

[gdkumar]

Understand what you mean. Thanks.

I love somebody but do not take care of him or her sounds to mean only one thing that that love is just a hollow word and just for the sake of saying.

That is why we talk about true love and unconditional love which does not differentiate between my and mine & thy and thine.

With love..................kumar.

[osiris]

those who are unwilling to suffer will all to often take love for granted.

much love :)

[know1nozme]

Such sacrifices as you make, osiris, are sacred, whether you choose to believe that or not. Your suffering endured for the actions you take is sacrifice of the ego for love. I am beginning to understand, I think, the nature of your problem with empiricism - sacrifice of the ego indicates a personal release of material life and an understanding and commitment to a "higher purpose." As Joseph Campbell said, "He who loses his life, gains it."

I would praise this, but no doubt your response would be that you are only doing what you/everyone should be doing - why praise for doing what you are supposed to do? But I'll tell you: because few people actually do it. That's why it is so special. :D

Namaste.

[osiris]

dear friend, i wish no praise, and i do not of course feel that everyone should do it, as i have stated above. i am certain of the outcome of these thoughts and actions, and am ever so grateful that upon my dissolution i shall be capable of permeation.

i owe you as much a thank you as you would owe me. but fuck the political pleasantries. all that goes without saying.

this discussion has done something, something subtle but very powerful.

do you feel it?

much love :)

[gdkumar]

Dear Know1nozme and Osiris,

Thanks for bringing an enthralling end (?) to a wonderful thread.
Both of you have been epitome of knowledge,mental strength and beauty.
Osiris is tough enough but still dents could be made because she recognizes love, right and wrong.

Osiris tells us about some subtle gains from this thread. Surely I do agree.
Sacrifie and suffering are best described and understood by the people who have experienced it to a degree at personal level. I strongly feel Osiris is one of them.

With love.........Kumar.

[osiris]

lol. i am male, for the sake of reference. it's cool, though, the heart is androgynous.

much love :)

[know1nozme]

Thanks Kumar. Thanks to you also Osiris.

This was a great discussion, though it seems clear that we have come as far with it as we can. How often does a thread such as this end on such a peaceful and agreeable note. It has been great, I'm certain we will find much more to discuss in the future and I am looking forward to it. :)

Blessed be
Love
Namaste

[osiris]

. How often does a thread such as this end on such a peaceful and agreeable note.
now that i think of it, very rare indeed.

my gratitude to you both as well, as well as the others that have posted in this thread, no matter the perceived length or depth of their contribution. who can say any small piece is irrelevant?

much love :)

[gdkumar]

Dear Osiris,

Thanks. You have really been an enigma. However, it is nice to know about you now. I shall feel at ease and take more liberty while corresponding with you.

With love..........Kumar.

[gdkumar]

Dear Know1nozme,

Thanks. You will always touch my heart.
You are someone outstanding in the Hipforums. I shall always be in touch with you.

With love..........Kumar.