- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
01 Jun 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadQuestion: when you add 3 and 2 in your mind, is that an instantiation of 3ness, 2ness, and addingness? It's not a physical or sense-data instantiation, but do we extend the concept of instantiation to the abstract realm?
It was the 'not any particular one' part I was commenting on. If threeness is independent of a particular instantiation, it suggests it has some reality other than mere instantiation. I am not sure what it implies if anything, but that is what I was getting at.
Or is "instantiation" itself, an abstraction, a member of the abstract realm?
The mind boggles.
One other issue I have heard of is, how can the two aspects of a dualism interact or affect one another.
01 Jun 15
Originally posted by JS357A computer program is somewhat independent of the hardware it is running on. Any Turing complete hardware will do. One could even argue that the program can never know what hardware it is running on - just as we may be living in the Matrix. We do not know whether the reality we observe is simulated on some massive computer, or the mind of God (actually the mind of God would be a computer too). Certainly, reality is nothing more than information flowing through a set of rules on a computing engine that simulates the laws of physics. So one could argue that the abstract is all there is.
One other issue I have heard of is, how can the two aspects of a dualism interact or affect one another.
I believe that in quantum dynamics, if two photons or other elementary particles have exactly the same quantum properties they become indistinguishable - or more tellingly, they become the same entity - an abstract entity with those given quantum properties. I have even heard it said that there is only one photon in the universe or something like that.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
01 Jun 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadI see an inherent dualism being expressed in these exchanges. For all the deep analysis we can do, the structure of the language we are using for this exchange virtually guarantees that we will fall into some sort of dualistic way of thinking about the world. It's a chicken-and-egg sort of thing, whether a dualistic attitude is the cause or the result of the dualistic language we use to represent and communicate ideas.
A computer program is somewhat independent of the hardware it is running on. Any Turing complete hardware will do. One could even argue that the program can never know what hardware it is running on - just as we may be living in the Matrix. We do not know whether the reality we observe is simulated on some massive computer, or the mind of God (actually th ...[text shortened]... I have even heard it said that there is only one photon in the universe or something like that.
In a couple of days I will be going away for a week, and won't be able to give this thread the attention it deserves. I have a feeling it's on its last legs anyway. My remaining concern is the philosophical/logical problems inherent in dualism, one of them being how they interact, another being that all we really have are experiences, phenomena, which argues in favor of monism. "Phenomenalism is the view that physical objects cannot justifiably be said to exist in themselves, but only as perceptual phenomena or sensory stimuli (e.g. redness, hardness, softness, sweetness, etc.) situated in time and in space." - wikipedia
02 Jun 15
I have not participated in this interesting topic earlier, because the dualism that I am thinking of is not the one discussed here, i.e. The threeness of something, or the abstract concept of three.
I am much more interested in what an earlier writer (sorry, forgot who or where exactly) in this thread said about dualism: the concept that THIS is RIGHT and THAT is WRONG.
In other words, everything is EITHER/OR. I believe that in many, if not most, cases, we need to consider the Yes, and.... position. This, in my mind, is non-dual thinking.
Before this thread dies, is anybody interested in pursuing that line of thought?
02 Jun 15
2 edits
Originally posted by CalJustCan you give examples?
In other words, everything is EITHER/OR. I believe that in many, if not most, cases, we need to consider the Yes, and.... position. This, in my mind, is non-dual thinking.
Before this thread dies, is anybody interested in pursuing that line of thought?
I know that false dichotomies are popular on this forum, but I am less inclined to agree with my understanding of your philosophy that truth is relative and people with vastly different religious beliefs can both be right. However, it could well be that my understanding is poor and you need to explain your stand more clearly.
02 Jun 15
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually, my position is very simple.
I know that false dichotomies are popular on this forum, but I am less inclined to agree with my understanding of your philosophy that truth is relative and pteople with vastly different religious beliefs can both be right. However, it could well be that my understanding is poorer and you need to explain your stand more clearly.
Given that:
(1). many people who hold a particular religious or spiritual pov do so emphatically and with conviction, and
(2). that spirituality per se is difficult to "put into a box" due to the nature of the beast (I mean, anybody who "understands God" has a god that is far too small,
Hence, who am I to say that I am right and you are wrong!? It is my subjective experience of the divine vs yours.
When last you and I tackled this subject, the problems which my pov faces were firstly that some people (you, for example) deny ALL spiritual experiences as valid (if they can't be analysed in a test tube), and secondly, that some spiritual claims really are absurd to most neutral observers (and I will not be drawn on who those may be!) So one has to be careful about what to be non-dualistic about.
You asked for an example besides Christianity and Buddhism that I used earlier. The thread on the Trinity is maybe a case in point. Both sides (i.e. JWs and Orthodox Christianity) have got strong Biblical support for their position. (My own favourite verse in this debate is where Jesus says "I am the true vine and my Father is the gardener". This is a nice view on the two different roles, but it is outside of this current discussion).
Both sides cling tenaciously to their interpretation, showing that there must be at least some defensible support in each. But maybe neither is right, and both are wrong, and the reality is something even stranger than either side can conceive? After all, most Christians will agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is a real challenge. Why not say: is this really so critically important? Non-dualist will say: No problem!
02 Jun 15
Originally posted by CalJustJust to be clear, is this the topic you did want to discuss, or did I take us off on a different track?
Actually, my position is very simple.
Given that:
(1). many people who hold a particular religious or spiritual pov do so emphatically and with conviction, and
(2). that spirituality per se is difficult to "put into a box" due to the nature of the beast (I mean, anybody who "understands God" has a god that is far too small,
Hence, who am I to say that I am right and you are wrong!? It is my subjective experience of the divine vs yours.
And I agree, who are you to say that? When your beliefs are based on emotions, personal experience not verifiable by scientific means etc, then you have to accept that they are just as likely to be true or untrue as someone else's different beliefs based on similar experiences.
But that is quite a different thing from saying that both are right, or even that it is possible for both to be right. And that is where I think you and I differ. Not being able to show whose belief is correct, does not automatically make everyone's belief equal, valid or true.
When last you and I tackled this subject, the problems which my pov faces were firstly that some people (you, for example) deny ALL spiritual experiences as valid (if they can't be analysed in a test tube),
Just for the record, that is not my position. I deny spiritual experiences as valid when they clearly contradict test tube results. I also deny spiritual experiences as valid evidence for a third party unless they can be analysed in a test tube. (keeping in mind that a literal test tube is not implied).
Both sides cling tenaciously to their interpretation, showing that there must be at least some defensible support in each. But maybe neither is right, and both are wrong, and the reality is something even stranger than either side can conceive?
Yes, both could be wrong. What I disagree with is a position that both could be right.
After all, most Christians will agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is a real challenge. Why not say: is this really so critically important? Non-dualist will say: No problem!
I don't understand where dualism is coming in to it. Are you saying a dualist simply doesn't care? What does that have to do with dualism?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
02 Jun 15
2 edits
Originally posted by CalJust"...most Christians will agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is a real challenge. Why not say: is this really so critically important? Non-dualist will say: No problem!"
Actually, my position is very simple.
Given that:
(1). many people who hold a particular religious or spiritual pov do so emphatically and with conviction, and
(2). that spirituality per se is difficult to "put into a box" due to the nature of the beast (I mean, anybody who "understands God" has a god that is far too small,
Hence, who am I to say th ...[text shortened]... hallenge. Why not say: is this really so critically important? Non-dualist will say: No problem!
This might be pertinent:
"The existence of theological mysteries is a doctrine of Catholic faith defined by the Vatican Council, which declares: "If any one say that in Divine Revelation there are contained no mysteries properly so called (vera et proprie dicta mysteria), but that through reason rightly developed (per rationem rite excultam) all the dogmas of faith can be understood and demonstrated from natural principles: let him be anathema" (Sess. III, Canons, 4. De fide et Ratione, 1). This teaching is clearly explained in Scripture. The principal proof text, which was cited in part by the Vatican Council, is 1 Corinthians 2. Shorter passages are especially Ephesians 3:4-9; Colossians 1:26-27; Matthew 11:25-27; John 1:17-18. These texts speak of a mystery of God, which only infinite wisdom can understand, namely, the designs of Divine Providence and the inner life of the Godhead (see also Wisdom 9:16-17; Romans 11:33-36)."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10662a.htm
The relevance is that, using your example, the doctrine of the Trinity (and its denial) cannot and should not be based on reason "rightly developed." So any rational analysis of truth that is only knowable by divine revelation is to be avoided. So one's beliefs about the trinity are to be one's own and are not dependent on rational analysis, including the rational arguments between sides.
Now when you ask " ...is this really so critically important?" You ask a key question, and the above quote on mystery addresses a deeper issue than the Trinity. It applies to the Trinity as a mystery, but that is because it applies to mystery itself, one example being the trinity. So the dualism invoked is between commitment to "reason rightly developed" for knowledge, and rejection, even condemnation of "reason rightly developed" in the resolution of mysteries.
This dualism, between reason versus (scriptural) revelation for the resolution of mysteries, puts people on both sides of the trinity dispute on thin ice to the extent that they rely on reason in their argument. It could even be said that arguing about the trinity is anathema -- even reasoning upon scripture would be anathema.
So the dualism that underlies your example, IMO, is between rational thought and argument being an acceptable means of approaching mysteries like the trinity, and its being unacceptable. It applies to both sides. Both should stand down. The dualism that underlies that is the dichotomy between things that are true that we can come to know by rational means, and those we can come to know, but not by rational means.
To be complete, the quote I cite above goes on to rely on non-Biblical sources for the full support of the anathema claim. The JWs; at least, and most non-RCC folks, would question them.
03 Jun 15
Originally posted by JS357Your post seems to have two different claims:
The dualism that underlies that is the dichotomy between things that are true that we can come to know by rational means, and those we can come to know, but not by rational means.
1. There are things we cannot know unless we had infinite knowledge/wisdom and they thus must remain a mystery.
2. There are things we can only know by means other than rational means.
You seem to treat the above two claims as the same claim, and I don't think they are, nor do I think you can justify 2 - but then I guess that if you know 2 by something other than rational means then you won't be justifying it.
03 Jun 15
Originally posted by CalJustI have to say that fully understanding the doctrine of the Trinity, is not important for most Christians. What is critically important however, is whether or not Jesus was God. If you worship Jesus and he is not God, then you are committing one of the worst possible sins. If you don't worship Jesus and he is God, then you are again committing a major mistake - although I don't know if it would count as a sin. Certainly, you cannot simultaneously hold that the rules on idolatry are important and that the validity of the trinity is not important.
After all, most Christians will agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is a real challenge. Why not say: is this really so critically important? Non-dualist will say: No problem!
03 Jun 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadWith respect you complete and utter fool.....................
Just to be clear, is this the topic you did want to discuss, or did I take us off on a different track?
[b]Given that:
(1). many people who hold a particular religious or spiritual pov do so emphatically and with conviction, and
(2). that spirituality per se is difficult to "put into a box" due to the nature of the beast (I mean, anybody who "unders ...[text shortened]... in to it. Are you saying a dualist simply doesn't care? What does that have to do with dualism?
Spiritual substance cannot be poked and prodded and put in a test tube and examined by mundane material apparatus.
Do you understand this?
I shall say it again..........."spiritual substance cannot be detected by mundane material apparatus."
Your comment about seeing results in your test tube is ignorant.
You can never study the spirit with your childish test tube.
Spirit is only contactable by purified intelligence.
To get purified intelligence you must embrace and follow true spirituality found in the VEDAS.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
03 Jun 15
Originally posted by DasaCalling someone a complete and utter fool can not be delivered 'with respect.' Indeed, only a complete and utter fool would think otherwise.
With respect you complete and utter fool.....................
Spiritual substance cannot be poked and prodded and put in a test tube and examined by mundane material apparatus.
Do you understand this?
I shall say it again..........."spiritual substance cannot be detected by mundane material apparatus."
Your comment about seeing results in your test ...[text shortened]...
To get purified intelligence you must embrace and follow true spirituality found in the VEDAS.
Spiritual substance can not be put in a test tube, because spiritual substance 'does not exist'. (Do you understand this?)
I shall say it again..........."spiritual substance cannot be detected, as it does not exist."
And If the means of attaining purified intelligence is to embrace and follow true spirituality found in the VEDAS, why is it that you clearly have no access to purified intelligence yourself?.
03 Jun 15
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't think you and I have ever had a conversation that ended reasonably satisfactorilly. The reason is probably because our positions are too far apart - on almost everything!
But that is quite a different thing from saying that both are right, or even that it is possible for both to be right.
I don't understand where dualism is coming in to it. Are you saying a dualist simply doesn't care? What does that have to do with dualism?
If we can establish that we at least have some common ground to work from, however limited, we can then usefully tackle something on which we disagree. But let's proceed for the moment.
Of course, in some areas (let's call them test tube areas,) it is possible to have Full Knowledge and Certainty. 2 + 2 is always 4, and I can prove it. Non-Dualism here would be misplaced. (Let's leave quantum theory and Newtonian physics out of this argument).
However, I maintain that in Spiritual areas, this is not possible. Neither the Pope, nor the Dalai Llama, nor the Chief Rabbi, have full and perfect knowledge of God. It is here where my "I do not know and cannot know everything" attitude is applied.
But you discount any spiritual experience, so it would be a moot point to discuss that any further, with you at least. I would welcome somebody who DOES have a spiritual base to maybe pursue that thought.
Yes, both could be wrong. What I disagree with is a position that both could be right.
It should be obvious that I do not mean that both are right in the sense of 2 + 2 = 4, and that something else is also 4, without actually BEING 4. What I mean is that of the several religions mentioned, maybe all have a PORTION of the Truth, but neither clearly the Full Truth, which would make them congruent, and which I already stated is impossible to know.
But lets examine another angle of dualism.
Every time we compare, we judge. And when we judge, we always put ourselves on the "better" or "correct" or "acceptable" side of the division. One is right, and the other wrong. This is the most common type of debate here on the SF.
For example, the gay-straight, or the black-white, or the pro-life, pro-choice axis. Here I also say dualism (i.e. one side is totally right and the other totally wrong), is bad. You don't have to be wishy-washy (as you have claimed me to be in a previous post) to say that I see the value of both sides, and refuse to be categorized as either in such a division. Don't compare and don't judge!
At least as far as possible. You will probably bring out many examples where this does not apply, and choice is not only appropriate, but imperative. That is also OK. I am stating a general principle to which there are obvious exceptions.
03 Jun 15
Originally posted by CalJustOr positions may be different but I fail to see why that means we cannot understand each other.
I don't think you and I have ever had a conversation that ended reasonably satisfactorilly. The reason is probably because our positions are too far apart - on almost everything!
Of course, in some areas (let's call them test tube areas,) it is possible to have Full Knowledge and Certainty. 2 + 2 is always 4, and I can prove it. Non-Dualism here would be misplaced. (Let's leave quantum theory and Newtonian physics out of this argument).
I am still not sure what you mean by non-dualism in this context.
And I feel compelled to point out that there is a mathematical proof that not all mathematical theories can be known. There are an infinite number of them so knowledge of them all would require an infinite storage.
However, I maintain that in Spiritual areas, this is not possible. Neither the Pope, nor the Dalai Llama, nor the Chief Rabbi, have full and perfect knowledge of God. It is here where my "I do not know and cannot know everything" attitude is applied.
And nobody, least of all me, has claimed to know everything. The issue is with things that the Pope, the Dalai Llama and the Chief Rabbi do claim to know, but which contradicts a claim made by one of the other two.
But you discount any spiritual experience,
I will say this again, since you don't seem to have read my previous post: no, I do not discount any spiritual experience. And I wonder why you seem so insistent on attributing that belief to me. Is it an attempt to avoid discussing it with me? And how would spiritual experience even be relevant to what is under discussion?
It should be obvious ...
It is far from obvious because you are very inexact in your language. You hint at things and contradict yourself but have not so far made your position very clear.
What I mean is that of the several religions mentioned, maybe all have a PORTION of the Truth, but neither clearly the Full Truth, which would make them congruent, and which I already stated is impossible to know.
I still don't see how this resolves conflicting claims, nor how it has anything to do with dualism or a dual anything.
Every time we compare, we judge. And when we judge, we always put ourselves on the "better" or "correct" or "acceptable" side of the division. One is right, and the other wrong. This is the most common type of debate here on the SF.
For example, the gay-straight, or the black-white, or the pro-life, pro-choice axis. Here I also say dualism (i.e. one side is totally right and the other totally wrong), is bad.
So we are talking about dichotomies. I am not sure dualism is the best term.
You don't have to be wishy-washy (as you have claimed me to be in a previous post) to say that I see the value of both sides, and refuse to be categorized as either in such a division. Don't compare and don't judge!
With complicated groups of views or claims, I would agree, it is not necessarily fruitful to create categories. This issue happens a lot with political parties, and on this forum we see the same problem with the category 'atheist'.
But again, I think the term to use for this is 'dichotomy' and not 'dualism'.
I also think that your attempts to remain neutral often go to far and you should actually take a stand on some issues.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
03 Jun 15
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI didn't mean to claim #1. The New Advent quote on mystery doesn't say a mystery truth can't be known, it says it (or its untruth) can't be known by reason.
Your post seems to have two different claims:
1. There are things we cannot know unless we had infinite knowledge/wisdom and they thus must remain a mystery.
2. There are things we can only know by means other than rational means.
You seem to treat the above two claims as the same claim, and I don't think they are, nor do I think you can justify 2 - bu ...[text shortened]... guess that if you know 2 by something other than rational means then you won't be justifying it.
#2 stands, not as my opinion, but as part of a construct I was introducing, that underlies faith that is held without appeal to reason. My aim was to get deeper into Caljust's idea of a nondualistic approach to the Trinity. Trinity as an example of mystery, opens up a potential duality based on sources of knowledge. Since this thread seems open to discussion of all sorts of duality, I thought I'd be explicit in taking the Trinity as an example of mystery/revelation, a sort of fideism, which some people deny can be a source of knowledge. Their belief would be a monism of rational empiricism. Your wry acknowledgement that fideism dispenses with need for its own rational justification is appreciated.