02 Oct 07
Originally posted by vistesd... the desire not to face up to mortality. Or the desire for relief from our existential fears generally.
One could say that the desire for a god (at least a particular kind of god) stems from the desire not to face up to mortality. Or the desire for relief from our existential fears generally. Or the desire to have answers to existential questions that are not answered simply by examining nature—or at least answers that we find satisfactory. Or the desire to ...[text shortened]... sthetics and our epistemology, beyond the fact that both are informed by our sense of coherency.
And yet unique among man's fear--- real and/or imagined--- is this one about God.
... the plethora of religious views does not point to a singular existent that satisfies those needs/desires.
I was thinking more along the lines of the universality/pervasiveness of the supernatural view as the compelling part. While I see the religious view agreeing with your described fear factor, the fact that man has always been overwhelmingly burdened with the God question demands consideration.
... beyond the fact that both are informed by our sense of coherency.
Just the psychological necessity for integrity ought to be enough to tell us something real is afoot.
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by twhitehead1. Needs are self induced whether or not there exists a possible external satisfaction for the need.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I may not be representing it in the intended fashion, more likely along the lines of what makes sense to me. The basic two-part gist is that the origin demans satisfaction from outside and the outside exists--- maybe not solely for the satisfaction of the need, but certainly represents a key aspect of the same.
...[text shortened]... not God himself but the belief in God.
Not all men feel a need for God in the first place.[/b]
So it shouldn't be too difficult to "Name a need" for which there is no external satisfaction.
2. What satisfies a religious mans need for God is not God himself but the belief in God.
Agreed, but not argued.
Not all men feel a need for God in the first place.
Argued, and no agreement.
02 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]2. What satisfies a religious mans need for God is not God himself but the belief in God.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I may not be representing it in the intended fashion, more likely along the lines of what makes sense to me. The basic two-part gist is that the origin demans satisfaction from outside and the outside exists--- maybe not solely for the satisfaction of the need, but certainly represents a key aspect of the same.[/b not God himself but the belief in God.
Not all men feel a need for God in the first place.
A few days ago, I would’ve said: (a) I think that is absolutely correct, and (b) really ought not to trouble a theist a great deal.
But Starrman’s post above triggered something that has been percolating beneath the surface for awhile. I’m going to stumble around this, because it’s still percolating, but—
I think maybe even your statement here goes too far. After all, a Taoist is—by my standards—a “religious man.” Those of us who find the “perennial philosophy” in many religious expressions (e.g., mystical Judaism)—and keep returning to it— perhaps have some aesthetic need/desire for:
(1) a sense of “connection” to the ineffable whole; and
(2) some way of expressing that (art, music, story, myth, poetry), or of “dancing with it”.
What I believe is that ultimately there is a coherent whole (I like scottishinnz’s phrase, the “totality that has no edge” ). That is, epistemically, I’m a non-dualist. However, I’ll not be greatly upset if I’m wrong, and there is ultimately some kind of multiplicity.
This goes to my old saying that religion is really more like Beethoven than like biology, more like Picasso than like propositional logic.
Once one admits the aesthetic dimension, of course, de gustibus non est disputandum. Not everyone has the same aesthetic needs/desires, nor should anyone expect them to. One can certainly live an aesthetically rich life without any religious dimension at all.
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'll give you pervasiveness, but not universality. Depending, of course, on how one defines "supernatural."
[b]... the desire not to face up to mortality. Or the desire for relief from our existential fears generally.
And yet unique among man's fear--- real and/or imagined--- is this one about God.
... the plethora of religious views does not point to a singular existent that satisfies those needs/desires.
I was thinking more along the lines of ...[text shortened]... he psychological necessity for integrity ought to be enough to tell us something real is afoot.[/b]
It would be surprising if, as beings born out of a coherent cosmos (something of a redundancy there), the grammar of our consciousness were not integrated with the syntax of the universe—whether anything else is afoot or not. That does not entail that our grammar is exhaustive of that syntax.
I think that our pervasive desire to know may come into play here as well. And that can get mingled with our desire/need to create. I don’t think that’s improper, as long as it’s recognized. That has always been a place where you and I differ—going way back to our discussions of midrash (an approach for which you’ve always shown regard, even though you disagree with its premises).
Quite frankly, I think that we always creatively participate in generating meaning from our engagement with the world in which we find ourselves, and from such things as Torah. That is, I don’t think meaning is given, only facts (as we discover them). We are too much a part of the process.
02 Oct 07
I feel the energy connecting all things through practicing Shao-lin and Yoga.
I do not feel any need for self condemnation as I was taught in various monotheistic religious organizations.
As an American, I feel that I have been forged in the spirit of unending conquest, domination, and achievement, and that often is counter to what I experience in more subtle moments of clarity.
I am attracted to philosophies over theologies for as I see it, one offers possible answers acknowledging ignorance, while the other offers possible answers but professes knowledge through faith.
Even the Buddhist theology is a bit much for me to accept, as stated earlier, I see no true reason for Karma or Nirvana to exist outside of ephemeral lip-service to concepts that cannot be grasped in words.
Popular Western Christianity, much like other fundamental theologies relies very heavily on conversion through intimidation; whereas I would say a strong theology needs no strong-arm branches to save others.
In the end, there's nothing to be saved from. If you think there is, truly you are already in a negative place and susceptible to these saving theologies. Our greatest enemy or ally lies within, and it is only to yourself that you will answer on your deathbed. I am unable to imagine my own death begging a conceptual deity for anything.
Additionally, there is clearly so much still not understood about the fundamental being of life on this planet. We are in a transition period moving away from simplistic Newtonian physics to a new possibility of being able to see the "unseen". Auras, Chi, Meditation, Astral projection, etc are clearly our attempts to reconnect into the unseen and it is only natural for cults to take full advantage of the unknown.
I hope in the future we will understand the value of fully grasping the emotional and spiritual parts of humanity with the fervor with which we have pursued the physical side.
That being said, in both Yoga and Shao Lin the masters always say that the physical pieces are the easiest to master and that pursuing the deeper arts of self knowledge take up our entire lives.
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by StarrmanInteresting post, particularly coming from you. I haven't been here for a while, but I remember your opinions being very close to mechanicism/determinism. I don't see any particular contradiction, if I read your post well, but it's nevertheless surprising.
For me aesthetic considerations are basically questions of quality; the beauty of things, relativity of judgements, dependency of context, synthetics. Epistemological ones are those of quantity; the measurement of things, limits of arguments, dependency of empirical values, analytics.
But when the boundary of knowledge and theory grows wide, the advan ...[text shortened]... Quine for a bit maybe) and in one of my more positivist moods I'm sure I'll reKant 😉
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by vistesdNo one can ever accuse you of giving too little! Every sentence conveys at least two or three meals upon which the reader must stop and chew or suffer loss of the whole. Truly, a thoughtful man's thinker. We who fancy ourselves thinkers are indebted to you.
I'll give you pervasiveness, but not universality. Depending, of course, on how one defines "supernatural."
It would be surprising if, as beings born out of a coherent cosmos (something of a redundancy there), the grammar of our consciousness were not integrated with the syntax of the universe—whether anything else is afoot or not. That does not entail ...[text shortened]... k meaning is given, only facts (as we discover them). We are too much a part of the process.
That being said...
... whether anything else is afoot or not.
If nothing is afoot, this is the lone aspect of man's existence which does not follow the otherwise-all-inclusive formula.
That does not entail that our grammar is exhaustive of that syntax.
We can only play the instruments we know. Funny how the myriad notes are all the same, though.
I think that our pervasive desire to know may come into play here as well.
A bit of redundacy, I think. To know requires (ok, suggests) knowledge--- although I think 'reguires' is correct, given our experience. We have no examples of non-knowledge.
Quite frankly, I think that we always creatively participate in generating meaning from our engagement with the world...
Same song, different tune. Wanting meaning, where only non-meaning exists?
We are too much a part of the process.
That sounds too much like a conclusion from someone who is part of the process.
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTaking your responses out of order—
No one can ever accuse you of giving too little! Every sentence conveys at least two or three meals upon which the reader must stop and chew or suffer loss of the whole. Truly, a thoughtful man's thinker. We who fancy ourselves thinkers are indebted to you.
That being said...
[b]... whether anything else is afoot or not.
If nothing is afoot, ...[text shortened]... rocess.[/b]
That sounds too much like a conclusion from someone who is part of the process.[/b]
A bit of redundancy, I think. To know requires (ok, suggests) knowledge--- although I think 'requires' is correct, given our experience. We have no examples of non-knowledge.
But this suggests that any question we are capable of asking must have an answer we are capable of understanding. But I think we are capable of asking questions that are incapable of any (meaningful) answer, and then making up answers, that we assume are meaningful.
Example: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” “Why” questions seem notorious in this regard.
Same song, different tune. Wanting meaning, where only non-meaning exists?
We literally can “find” no meaning exclusive of ourselves, because we are involved in the process. This is, broadly, the issue of self-reference within the system. Meaning is not an existent.
That sounds too much like a conclusion from someone who is part of the process.
Of course. My philosophical conclusions are not immune from being “too much a part of the process”, and represent my own creative engagement. I acknowledge that. In that, I am Camusian as well as midrashist (or, one could say that I take a midrashic approach to more than just texts).
We can only play the instruments we know. Funny how the myriad notes are all the same, though.
They are not all the same. I would say there are some broad similarities. Lucifershammer might thump both of us on that one. (I’m usually the one that gets thumped for too much religious syncretism!) I find it interesting, for example, that the so-called “perennial philosophy” (non-dualist) can be found in even otherwise dualistic-theist religious expressions.
If nothing is afoot, this is the lone aspect of man's existence which does not follow the otherwise-all-inclusive formula.
No—it means that our tendencies (valid, in my view, as such) to project and to creatively speculate are part of the “formula.” Nevertheless, Teilhard’s is still a question that I entertain...
_____________________________
Thanks for the compliment, but I think it comes down to having written so much on here over the years that I end up employing a kind of “thick” shorthand. You and I have been reading each other long enough that we can read each other’s shorthand, and see that there’s more behind it.
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by PalynkaYou're quite right, they are, but I feel there's room for Qualitas ex machina.
Interesting post, particularly coming from you. I haven't been here for a while, but I remember your opinions being very close to mechanicism/determinism. I don't see any particular contradiction, if I read your post well, but it's nevertheless surprising.
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by vistesdBut I think we are capable of asking questions that are incapable of any (meaningful) answer, and then making up answers, that we assume are meaningful.
Taking your responses out of order—
A bit of redundancy, I think. To know requires (ok, suggests) knowledge--- although I think 'requires' is correct, given our experience. We have no examples of non-knowledge.
But this suggests that any question we are capable of asking must have an answer we are capable of understanding. But I think we ar ...[text shortened]... her long enough that we can read each other’s shorthand, and see that there’s more behind it.[/b]
Example: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” “Why” questions seem notorious in this regard.
I don't know that the 'why' questions can be entertained until the others are at least given, or presumed. By that, I mean at minimum the 'who' and the 'what' must be somewhat presumed, as it were, before the 'why' can be considered.
I am also of the opinion that man cannot imagine bigger or more than what actually exists. Without question, infinity is always subject to +one, but that non-contradiction notwithstanding, man is limited by his imagination--- not, intuitively, his knowledge.
They are not all the same. I would say there are some broad similarities.
I meant the 'note' part, in the same way that all foodstuff contain specific attributes renedering the same consumable to the human body, all systems of thought designed to answer the God question contain common aspects--- to feed the need, so to speak.
Teilhard’s is still a question that I entertain...
Sometimes our learning keeps us from true knowledge.
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by mdhallThankyou for this excellent post.
I feel the energy connecting all things through practicing Shao-lin and Yoga.
I do not feel any need for self condemnation as I was taught in various monotheistic religious organizations.
As an American, I feel that I have been forged in the spirit of unending conquest, domination, and achievement, and that often is counter to what I experience in more su ...[text shortened]... siest to master and that pursuing the deeper arts of self knowledge take up our entire lives.
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by mdhallJohn 3:17 "For God sent not his Son to codemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believes on him is not condemned; but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."
[b]I feel the energy connecting all things through practicing Shao-lin and Yoga.
I do not feel any need for self condemnation as I was taught in various monotheistic religious organizations.