Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Universally, man has a concept of God. If indeed there be no God, this concept stands out as the one universal aspect of human nature that is a complete anomoly to all of his drives.
Have you ever heard the saying: 'If horses had gods, they'd look like horses?' Sure, man developed
a concept of supreme entities and, unsurprisingly, they all look a lot like himself; Babylonian, Semetic,
Egyptian, Greco-Roman, Norse, Native American, &c &c &c all employed their anthropomorphizing
skills and made the sun, the rain, the clouds, the trees, the earth, everything manlike. Man doesn't
have a 'concept of God' like you say, but a concept of Himself. Just like man can imagine
himself flying like a bird or being as strong as an ox or as wise as an owl, man can imagine that
a 'man-like' entity can toss lightning, carry the sun, or till the earth to form creation.
Mythology is merely a reflection of self, not other. There is no external concept in man's stories
about the Divine, only a reflection of the self.
Nemesio attempts to equate man's search for the end of pi, or the quest to travel as fast as light with man's concept of God. Instead of counteracting the original claim, he underscores it with the argument. Pi is real. Light's speed is real. Our quests in these areas--- although currently frustrated--- are quests involved with reality.
Yes, and we are real.
Man has conjured up all kinds of gods and silliness in attempt to provide various answers and/or motivations. All of these have been quickly discarded as fantasy.
And yet you believe in a literal creation! What chutzpah you have! You scoff at the idea that
some god pooped and the earth sprang into being, or that creation was the fruit of some goddess'
loins (what fantasy, you say!) but a seven-day Creation has credence? Wow.
Yet the concept of the relational, personal God persists... as it has from man's earliest recorded history. Why?
Because you're looking at the last 3,000 years of a 200,000 year history of homo sapiens
and 3,000 years of a 2.5 million year history of the proto-human culture. It's like the three
blind men and the elephant (if you know the story).
The concept of the relational, personal God exists because it's pretty damn frightening to think
that we're all alone, or that the tremendous evil and chaos isn't mitigated by some supreme good
and order, or that the selves which we cherish so dearly might be finite, or that we don't have
some 'purpose' in the universe. It might make one feel pretty damn lonely to think the 150 pounds
of flesh we comprise is just some infinitesimal fraction of the earth (and an even smaller part
of the universe). And so, we, in our arrogance, create a very human-like figure in the desperate
attempt to give 'meaning' to our lives.
These are among the reasons 'why' the concept of the Divine exists. We used what we had
from within in order to justify ourselves from without.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioWell, you just put meat on the bones of my whole “translating ‘experiences’ of the ineffable according to the grammar of our consciousness” spiel!
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Universally, man has a concept of God. If indeed there be no God, this concept stands out as the one universal aspect of human nature that is a complete anomoly to all of his drives.
Have you ever heard the saying: 'If horses had gods, they'd look like horses?' Sure, man developed
a concept of supreme entit in[/i] in order to justify ourselves from without.
Nemesio[/b]
We used what we had from within in order to justify ourselves from without.
Something a bit idolatrous, perhaps, about dismissing our own (quite natural, I think) role in the process and setting our “translation” outside ourselves as a conceptual idol? You and I, I think, tend to define idolatry more broadly than most. I always recall Anthony DeMello’s statement: “The Mystery doesn’t need defending; idols do.”
The dilemma for such as you and I, I think again, is that although on the one hand all our conceptual representations are formed as much by the grammar of our consciousness as by the larger reality presented to it; on the other hand, the very fact that that grammar is itself part of the larger syntax of reality implies that they are coherent with one another (if I can speak in such a dualistic fashion!). That is one reason that I look for coherencies in the various symbolisms across religions. Of course (again, that damned other hand!), the question is still how much of those “comparative coherencies” are due to our common grammar, and how much is actually isomorphic with the larger reality...
I once tried to make a logical argument that the notion of God as a supernatural being is per se incoherent. But my “syllogism” was so cumbersome that I ended up not being convinced by it myself (though I was still arguing with lucifershammer when the thread died). So I end up being a non-dualist simply because that seems to me to be the most reasonable and coherent “translation” of my own experiences of the ineffable. In fact, that very coherency—that is, the experience of coherency—itself leads me to think in terms of an ultimate Whole, rather than an ultimate dualism.
What I posted above made me think of something else that I wrote (which you might recall)—
______________________________________
My conclusion of (to) non-dualism lies here:
When I let go of all conceptualization I find myself just being aware of—I’ll use the Buddhist word tathata, suchness. But in that suchness, I also am; of that suchness I also am. The experience is one of of-ness.
Zen (and other traditions) use koan-like metaphors to dizzy the concept-making mind until it stops (like a top toppling over) and just is—aware. So: I am aware of that suchness in which I am being aware of that suchness in which I am being aware...
...until I realize that I am of that tathata, and the self-referential loop collapses, as it were. There is no word I have for that except “realization.”
The self-referential “I” is illusory in the sense of being transient and actually non-separate. It is a construct of our self-looping consciousness (which may be an accident of evolution for all I know). Maybe the universe includes intention, of which we, again, are—but that is just metaphysical speculation, for me at any rate. (Some Buddhists say that it is all one mind; but once that I-other referential framework collapses, I don't know what to say.)
Part of the difficulty is that our language (in which we think, as well as speak) is dualistic, so that I cannot avoid adding to the confusion in attempts at explanation. It has taken me a long time, and some frustration, to understand that. Nevertheless, confusion is not a bad thing (in fact, it can be “effective means” ) if it topples the top of the spinning mind—without resulting in insanity.
The one word that I will use to “describe” the experience of tathata is “coherent”. If one can avoid thinking in terms of what strictly seems beneficial to the “I-construct” (the individual somebody-self), I might use the word “harmonious.” In the experience of “of-ness” of it, of non-separability, that coherency does not seem like just something that my mind adds.
That seems to soothe the fear of the “I” somewhat, in the face of its impending death. My only regret is that it has taken me so long to realize this; for me, there was more fear before, when I reflect back on it.
_______________________________________
Consider that what you’re looking for (that something besides your body) is what you’re looking with. Trying to “find” it is therefore like trying to shine a flashlight beam on itself. It is the one thing that our self-looping consciousness cannot “find”. Zen master Wolfgang Kopp put it this way: “The divine reality you’re looking for is your own mind.”
I put it this way: “What you’re looking for looks both ways / through the needle’s eye of your own mind.”
The mind looks inward to find itself (“soul” ); the mind looks outward to find itself (“god” ).
Stephen Mitchell, in his (generally loose) translation of the Tao Te Ching, says: “You can’t know it. But you can be it, at ease in your own mind.” Depends what he means by the word “know”. Realization is like an orgasm in which all perception of “I” and “other” collapses. (Tat tvam asi the Upanishads say: “You are that.” And vice versa.) That kind of knowing, I call gnosis, as opposed to episteme.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut the last digit of pi that Nemesio refers to is not real and even Pi itself is a concept and not a physical entity. But then, I do not know where Nemesio got his example from because no mathematician in his right mind would be searching for the last digit of pi any more than they would be trying to work out the exact numerical value of infinity because both are simply logical impossibilities.
Pi is real.
Universally, man has a concept of God.
Man has conjured up all kinds of gods and silliness in attempt to provide various answers and/or motivations.
What do you mean by "universally"? Are you claiming that all men have a concept of God? Do you have anything to back that up? I would claim that nobody who has not been introduced to a monotheistic religion has a concept of a single God at all. In fact the tendency by far is to 'conjour up all kinds of gods.' Even members or so called monotheistic religions do that, imagining devils, saints, angels and other gods with ease.
All of these have been quickly discarded as fantasy.
By whom have they been 'quickly discarded'? By you maybe, but your statement implies a general tendency throughout the world which is most definitely not the case at all. Many religions have persisted for a very long time with multiple gods and some still do (Hinduism for example).
Originally posted by NemesioMan doesn't have a 'concept of God' like you say, but a concept of Himself.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Universally, man has a concept of God. If indeed there be no God, this concept stands out as the one universal aspect of human nature that is a complete anomoly to all of his drives.
Have you ever heard the saying: 'If horses had gods, they'd look like horses?' Sure, man developed
a concept of supreme entities ...[text shortened]... in[/i] in order to justify ourselves from without.
Nemesio[/b]
He doesn't? That's news to me and a total contradiction to a very common thread of man's recorded history.
If I read you right, you are stating that God is simply the self elevated to the nth degree. Further, it appears you are saying that the self is either so offensive or so frustrating that man can only examine it when safely removed to a considerable--- even impossible--- distance. If so, why, exactly? When his navel is right there in front of him, why can he only gaze upon it comfortably from afar? In other words, what is then about the self that so challenges man as to produce such a convoluted construct, i.e., God?
Further still, even considering my reading incorrect, you are contradicting your own experience. If man has no God concept, he cannot recognize the same. You, however, take God to be. Those dots are too far away to allow any connection.
... but a seven-day Creation has credence? Wow.
When, in the two years of our correspondence, have you ever heard me support a seven-day creation? Look before you leap.
These are among the reasons 'why' the concept of the Divine exists. We used what we had from within in order to justify ourselves from without.
What was it from without that inspired the need for justification?
Originally posted by vistesdAlthough attendant, I have this same thought rolling around with respect to using a dictionary of words (closed system) to define words from within a closed system. It seems as though an outside-of-the-influence perspective is required.
Well, you just put meat on the bones of my whole “translating ‘experiences’ of the ineffable according to the grammar of our consciousness” spiel!
We used what we had from within in order to justify ourselves from without.
Something a bit idolatrous, perhaps, about dismissing our own (quite natural, I think) role in the process and setting our “tra ...[text shortened]... herency—itself leads me to think in terms of an ultimate Whole, rather than an ultimate dualism.[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut the last digit of pi that Nemesio refers to is not real and even Pi itself is a concept and not a physical entity.
But the last digit of pi that Nemesio refers to is not real and even Pi itself is a concept and not a physical entity. But then, I do not know where Nemesio got his example from because no mathematician in his right mind would be searching for the last digit of pi any more than they would be trying to work out the exact numerical value of infinity becaus ...[text shortened]... ersisted for a very long time with multiple gods and some still do (Hinduism for example).
Agree, in part and disagree in part. While we may go on forever in our quest for the boundary of pi I think we get our cues from our experience thus far in our attempt to apply the same to that end. We try to solve because we think it can be solved, and have been encouraged in such quests by our previous successes.
And while pi is conceptual, it is a linked commentary on reality. A messy ending to our (desired) perfect circles tells us something is a bit off in reality.
Are you claiming that all men have a concept of God? Do you have anything to back that up?
I am, and you are keenly aware of the phenomenon.
I would claim that nobody who has not been introduced to a monotheistic religion has a concept of a single God at all.
I would argue that only those separated from the original default position conjure up pantheons. The living God has been a constant fixture in man's experience from the very beginning.
By whom have they been 'quickly discarded'?
By those exposed to the truth, of course! In modern times, the example of Japan could be applied, for instance. Once man is exposed to truth, he must really fight to go back to myth. Cultures exposed (integrated) to western civilization usually join western civilization.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe Japanese would be very surprised to learn that they have joined "western civilization".
[b]But the last digit of pi that Nemesio refers to is not real and even Pi itself is a concept and not a physical entity.
Agree, in part and disagree in part. While we may go on forever in our quest for the boundary of pi I think we get our cues from our experience thus far in our attempt to apply the same to that end. We try to solve because th. Cultures exposed (integrated) to western civilization usually join western civilization.[/b]
Freaky: Universally, man has a need for food, shelter, warmth, succor. Universally, these needs can be met through exterior realities. Universally, man has a concept of God. If indeed there be no God, this concept stands out as the one universal aspect of human nature that is a complete anomoly to all of his drives.
This is a false statement; there are entire eastern philosophies like Buddhism, Taoism, certain types of Hinduism, etc. etc. etc. that don't believe in a God at all (or have no need for such concept). To compare the "concept of a God" to the physical necessities of human beings in the manner you do in the above paragraph is erroneous and sloppy thinking.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe Japanese would be very surprised to learn that they have joined "western civilization".
The Japanese would be very surprised to learn that they have joined "western civilization".
Freaky: Universally, man has a need for food, shelter, warmth, succor. Universally, these needs can be met through exterior realities. Universally, man has a concept of God. If indeed there be no God, this concept stands out as the one universal aspect of huma ...[text shortened]... human beings in the manner you do in the above paragraph is erroneous and sloppy thinking.
'Guess you haven't stayed with their development since WWII. It's really quite the transformation they've achieved since then, and I encourage you to catch up as quickly as possible.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe changes in Japan post-WWII do not equate to "joining Western civilization". Try telling a Japanese person such nonsense and see what the response is.
[b]The Japanese would be very surprised to learn that they have joined "western civilization".
'Guess you haven't stayed with their development since WWII. It's really quite the transformation they've achieved since then, and I encourage you to catch up as quickly as possible.[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderLet's make sure you're being understood. Are you equating Japan's current economic/financial power with its shinto-sponsored condition, pre-WWII?
The changes in Japan post-WWII do not equate to "joining Western civilization". Try telling a Japanese person such nonsense and see what the response is.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI get the same thought—with regard to the dictionary, that is. 🙂
Although attendant, I have this same thought rolling around with respect to using a dictionary of words (closed system) to define words from within a closed system. It seems as though an outside-of-the-influence perspective is required.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI doubt that has anything to do with it. Put it this way, my economic circumstances have not at all been affected by the fact that I have become a Zen Buddhist—nor do I wear any different clothes, etc. The majority of Japanese did not become monotheists post WW-II.
Let's make sure you're being understood. Are you equating Japan's current economic/financial power with its shinto-sponsored condition, pre-WWII?
Originally posted by vistesdFor one, the state-sponsored religion was abandoned... no small feat, given its reigning duration prior.
I doubt that has anything to do with it. Put it this way, my economic circumstances have not at all been affected by the fact that I have become a Zen Buddhist—nor do I wear any different clothes, etc. The majority of Japanese did not become monotheists post WW-II.
Outside of the US, you will not find a more overt example of western civilization than what is readily observed in any medium-sized city of Japan. From financial structure to business models to accouterments of leisure, Japan is a mini-US.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLet's make sure you're being understood; do you believe a country's economic/financial power is equivalent to its degree of civilization with a higher level of economic/financial power equating to western civilization?
Let's make sure you're being understood. Are you equating Japan's current economic/financial power with its shinto-sponsored condition, pre-WWII?