Bedrock

Originally posted by epiphinehas
At bottom what you are saying is that no 'thing' carries with it an inherent meaning, and that meaning is an artificial invention. Correct me if I am wrong.

Biblical texts seem to suggest otherwise, however. Note Romans 1:18-20:

[i]"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrig an inherent meaning in created things, which we do not create ourselves, but discover.

[/i]At bottom what you are saying is that no 'thing' carries with it an inherent meaning, and that meaning is an artificial invention. Correct me if I am wrong.

I think that our quest for meaning is quite natural. But it is we, in our engagement with the rest of reality, who make meaning. The Biblical authors not excepted.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
What the scripture alludes to, I think, is an intuitive knowledge. "He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end" (Ecclesiastes 3:11).

Whether it is a grasping of God's eternal nature through contemplation of the unbounded universe and its innumerable galaxies, or, as J. R. R. Tolkien s ...[text shortened]... ' is, according to the passage cited in Romans, meant by God to be self-revelatory.

I was trying to address more the nature of normativity, not just how we come to know or think about such things. The intuitive knowledge you describe is compatible with your God's handiwork, sure, but it's also compatible with secular intuitionism, too. Supposing such knowledge exists, it certainly doesn't point us to your God particularly. But at any rate, there seems no reason for me to think that the meaning you have described is 'inherent' to things by the normal usage of that word, which was my point.

The only thing you (and Tolkien supposedly) are directly describing here is what bbarr has described as the propensity to go around assigning agency more or less willy-nilly.

Originally posted by vistesd
..But since you keep conflating religion with straightforward awareness, I’m not sure what you think is BS. You seem to think that at any moment that you are not actively thinking/conceptualizing about what’s going on, you are in some kind of psychological danger zone. If so, make sure that you keep on conceptualizing (except perhaps when you’re asleep)...

I really don't seem to have expressed myself very clearly at all do I?

If there is a bedrock in the experience of reality I presume you mean that there must be a sensing and then a reaction to that sensing. Mentally we assign qualities to the experience - good, bad, uncomfortable etc. I thought you were trying to point to a space, point or place prior to a reaction setting in. I thought this is what you were getting at - we have to be there to experience the reality, but we do not have to qualify it or quantify it in anyway. Meanings are assigned at a later stage. I don't know if this point between sense and reaction is possible to pinpoint physiologically, although I know some practitioners of Zen meditation and TM have had their brain waves measured.

If we lose the absorption we can be aware of the thoughts arising as well as the bedrock experience. The danger may come in drawing lines round part of the experience and realising that we are in reality both sides of such a line. I am aware of myself sensing this experience and having thoughts arise, at the same time as being aware of those thoughts and the experience, layer upon layer, ad infinitum, till breakdown ensues?

My other concern is that if the point between sensing and reacting is not possible physiologically ie our brains simply cannot work that way, then the "bedrock experience" is no more than a concept anyway.

Originally posted by vistesd
[/i][b]At bottom what you are saying is that no 'thing' carries with it an inherent meaning, and that meaning is an artificial invention. Correct me if I am wrong.

I think that our quest for meaning is quite natural. But it is we, in our engagement with the rest of reality, who make meaning. The Biblical authors not excepted.[/b]

What then of Christ's quote, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24:35) ? Truly God's words are a more significant, superior and preeminent reality than 'pure experience'. If such is the case, it is the word of God which interprets our reality and not our reality which interprets the word of God.

But how could this be?!?! 🙂

Originally posted by epiphinehas
What then of Christ's quote, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24:35) ? Truly God's words are a more significant, superior and preeminent reality than 'pure experience'. If such is the case, it is the word of God which interprets our reality and not our reality which interprets the word of God.

But how could this be?!?! 🙂

This reminds me of the old joke:

“What time does your watch say it is?”

“My watch doesn’t say anything. Ya gotta look at it.”

Jesus’ words, as well as the words of the various Biblical authors, are interpretations of (meanings assigned to) their experienced reality. Stating that they are God’s words is also an interpretation, of those words.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I was trying to address more the nature of normativity, not just how we come to know or think about such things. The intuitive knowledge you describe is compatible with your God's handiwork, sure, but it's also compatible with secular intuitionism, too. Supposing such knowledge exists, it certainly doesn't point us to your God particularly. But at any arr has described as the propensity to go around assigning agency more or less willy-nilly.

Perhaps 'inherent' isn't the best word. And I realize the intuition of which I speak doesn't necessarily point to the God of Abraham. I think the subtlety of the passage was lost on me. It is closer to the truth to say that Paul is speaking about the propensity of wicked people to purposefully ignore any and every hint of the possibility of a Creator in order to be free of accountability. Paul's point is that they are without excuse, regardless of their attempts to suppress the truth; all people, Jew or Gentile, are accountable to the law.

That said, 'assigning agency more or less willy-nilly' is the privilege of faithful people. 🙂 Yes, it may cause problems for bbarr and for those in his line of work, but for artists and poets, like people of faith, assigning agency willy-nilly goes with the territory; 'inherent', if you will.

Originally posted by Sepia Tint
I really don't seem to have expressed myself very clearly at all do I?

If there is a bedrock in the experience of reality I presume you mean that there must be a sensing and then a reaction to that sensing. Mentally we assign qualities to the experience - good, bad, uncomfortable etc. I thought you were trying to point to a space, point or place prior ...[text shortened]... simply cannot work that way, then the "bedrock experience" is no more than a concept anyway.

If we lose the absorption we can be aware of the thoughts arising as well as the bedrock experience. The danger may come in drawing lines round part of the experience and realizing that we are in reality both sides of such a line. I am aware of myself sensing this experience and having thoughts arise, at the same time as being aware of those thoughts and the experience, layer upon layer, ad infinitum, till breakdown ensues?

I am aware and sensing this experience. Thoughts arise. I am aware of the thoughts. I can choose to follow the thoughts, or return to the experience. This is not different from sitting in a concert, listening to the music. Then I have a thought: I remember that I have a doctor’s appointment tomorrow. I can continue to think about that, or I can return to just listening to the music. Or I can keep iterating back and forth, which is a version of “divided mind”.

I am splitting wood. A distracting thought arises. I miss the stroke and sprain my back...

Etc., etc.

Our thinking-mind does not have to run all the time willy-nilly. Athletes learn how to focus their attention, and let go of distractions. So do those of us who occasionally wield an axe...

My other concern is that if the point between sensing and reacting is not possible physiologically ie our brains simply cannot work that way, then the "bedrock experience" is no more than a concept anyway.

It’s possible.

Originally posted by vistesd
This reminds me of the old joke:

“What time does your watch say it is?”

“My watch doesn’t say anything. Ya gotta look at it.”

Jesus’ words, as well as the words of the various Biblical authors, are interpretations of (meanings assigned to) their experienced reality. Stating that they are God’s words is also an interpretation, of those words.

Yes, but the point is, the reality which God's words point to transcends heaven and earth, giving the words themselves their timeless quality and a preeminence over and above pure experience. Primarily because the eternal reality which is being delineated, and which one relies upon by faith alone (not by experience), is not accessible by direct experience.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Yes, but the point is, the reality which God's words point to transcends heaven and earth, giving the words themselves their timeless quality and a preeminence over and above pure experience. Primarily because the eternal reality which is being delineated, and which one relies upon by faith alone (not by experience), is not accessible by direct experience.

"Christ saith this, the apostles saith that, but what canst thou say?" George Fox

I am not sure that many Christian Mystics would agree with your statement to the degree that they probably derive their faith from an overwhelming sense of the "presence of God" in their experience of reality.

Originally posted by Sepia Tint
"Christ saith this, the apostles saith that, but what canst thou say?" George Fox

I will mow the lawn tomorrow.

Am I the subject of the enunciation, the subject of the enunciating, or both?

Originally posted by Sepia Tint
"Christ saith this, the apostles saith that, but what canst thou say?" George Fox

I am not sure that many Christian Mystics would agree with your statement to the degree that they probably derive their faith from an overwhelming sense of the "presence of God" in their experience of reality.

The only addendum to this that I’d make is that first they may experience a “sense of presence,” and then translate to that being the presence “of God”.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Yes, but the point is, the reality which God's words point to transcends heaven and earth, giving the words themselves their timeless quality and a preeminence over and above pure experience. Primarily because the eternal reality which is being delineated, and which one relies upon by faith alone (not by experience), is not accessible by direct experience.

I am not aware of a faith that is not a faith in something.

You can have faith in an experience. You can have faith in an idea. The idea may come from a translation of the experience that you make.

[I’ve talked about what I call “immediate translation” of experience into representational content before. Just as our brain translates visual stimuli into a representation (say, a picture of a tree inside our head), we also may translate the so-called mystical experience into, say, a vision or message from Krishna. The Zen masters call this makkyo, bedeviling illusions, and counsel ignoring it. I tend to be a bit more sympathetic: perhaps in such translation we might gain some insight into our existence (of at least an aesthetic nature). Nevertheless, it is our brain/mind making the representation (even if it takes the form of a projection that seems to be external).]

Faith does not produce either knowledge or reality. Your faith, as you have articulated it, seems to be faith in the idea of a reality that that you cannot experience—except perhaps, as Sepia might point out, your mental “experience” of holding the concept in your mind. That idea is communicated to you through the Biblical texts.

This is the faith that is said to be “evidence (or conviction or assurance or testing: elegchos) of things not seen.” Now, if “unseen” here is understood broadly as “unexperienced,” then we are back to the referent of that faith being an idea, a concept—that may or may not result from a mental translation from an experience...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I will mow the lawn tomorrow.

Am I the subject of the enunciation, the subject of the enunciating, or both?

Ah, the tricky “I”!

If I can add to that a bit—

I am sitting on the porch, listening to birdsong, say. Am I the subject of the experience, or the subject experiencing?

Originally posted by vistesd
Ah, the tricky “I”!

If I can add to that a bit—

I am sitting on the porch, listening to birdsong, say. Am I the subject of the experience, or the subject experiencing?

Or the third one, wondering. Or--

Mind you feed the birds, now.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Or the third one, wondering. Or--

Mind you feed the birds, now.

I do feed the birds. 🙂