The Beatitudes

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Don't be an idiot all your life, Stan.

You're kidding, right? First you deny the existence of "the individual self". Then you deny the existence of linguistically explicable reality. Then you claim I (comparable to the non-you) am an idiot. Should I take this claim [that I'm an idiot] as an accurate description of reality -- or would you rather spell it out mathematically for me?

Originally posted by Halitose
Don't bump your head. Excuse me, my self-defeatometer is buzzing in my pocket. Isn't this language that you are using in refuting your very claim?

a²+b²=c²

Originally posted by Nordlys
a²+b²=c²

Well, well. I got myself a right-angled triangle. What should it use for?

Originally posted by Halitose
You're kidding, right? First you deny the existence of "the individual self". Then you deny the existence of linguistically explicable reality. Then you claim I (comparable to the non-you) am an idiot. Should I take this claim [that I'm an idiot] as an accurate description of reality -- or would you rather spell it out mathematically for me?

Idiot is an insult born of exasperation. My fault. Sorry.

The argument is about whether words reflect reality--to my mind, this is patently absurd--but prove me wrong. Use words to describe an object in such a way that I cannot fail to appreciate its quiddity. Something simple to start off with--let's say your right eye. Then move on to something more complex--the sea, for example.

Incidentally I don't deny the existence of the individual self. I simply maintain that it isn't real.--Why do you think Buddhism is wrong?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, you think it is best to lie to your children rather than let them face reality? What about when they grow up? At what point to you tell them the truth or is it better to let them live thier whole lives believing in father Christmas?

If I (or, rather, some supposed entity in close proximity to this [there "I" go again!] sensory station) am reading this correctly, I believe (bear with me -oops!- on this one, please) the sensory station labled Halitose is registering (whatever that means) a belief (heh-heh) that the system presented by Christianity is not merely a remedy in the face of random meaningless nothingness, but rather a belief based upon reality.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If I (or, rather, some supposed entity in close proximity to this [there "I" go again!] sensory station) am reading this correctly, I believe (bear with me -oops!- on this one, please) the sensory station labled Halitose is registering (whatever that means) a belief (heh-heh) that the system presented by Christianity is not merely a remedy in the face of random meaningless nothingness, but rather a belief based upon reality.

Define reality.

Originally posted by Starrman
Define reality.

Sorry: did you say something?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If I (or, rather, some supposed entity in close proximity to this [there "I" go again!] sensory station) am reading this correctly, I believe (bear with me -oops!- on this one, please) the sensory station labled Halitose is registering (whatever that means) a belief (heh-heh) that the system presented by Christianity is not merely a remedy in the face of random meaningless nothingness, but rather a belief based upon reality.

Your joke clarifies the problem with language: it obscures as much as it makes clear. The writings of people who have come closest to reality ("experienced God" ) are often incomprehensible to the soberly logical. Anyway--I should hope that Christians follow their path in the belief that it is the most realistic. However it is also often the case that they follow it because it reflects what they they think reality must be. That must is a reason to distrust language.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Your joke clarifies the problem with language: it obscures as much as it makes clear. The writings of people who have come closest to reality ("experienced God" ) are often incomprehensible to the soberly logical. Anyway--I should hope that Christians follow their path in the belief that it is the most realistic. However it is also often the case that ...[text shortened]... hat they they think reality must be. That must is a reason to distrust language.

To be sure. However, the beauty of a mind stayed on Christ is that, regardless of the supposed depth of thought, His thoughts are simply deeper.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
However, the beauty of a mind stayed on Christ is that, regardless of the supposed depth of thought, His thoughts are simply deeper.

I don't see the connection between this sentence and my post.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't see the connection between this sentence and my post.

Just doing my part to be incomprehensible.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Just doing my part to be incomprehensible.

I have an idea what you mean, I just don't see how it relates to what I said. Not that you're obliged to have a conversation, you're free to make random comments, but communication is a two-way street and all that. Unless the mystique of the mumbling mystic is what you're after.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I have an idea what you mean, I just don't see how it relates to what I said. Not that you're obliged to have a conversation, you're free to make random comments, but communication is a two-way street and all that. Unless the mystique of the mumbling mystic is what you're after.

Although retrospect afforded me with an opportunity to appear incomprehensible (my feeble attempt at humor), I was actually agreeing with you. Specifically:

However it is also often the case that they follow it because it reflects what they they think reality must be. That must is a reason to distrust language.

...which I take to mean--- and agree with--- that Christians are often a very dishonest group of people, following something with which they don't truly agree. More pointedly, when examined honestly, in their 'heart of hearts,' so to speak, they would actually reject what they profess to be truth, in that it is impossible to reconcile some aspects with reality.

However, they end up staying with the belief, as the alternative is too stifling to bear. Am I anywhere near your intent?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Am I anywhere near your intent?

Spot on. I'd say the same applies to adherents of many faiths (would you agree that Christianity is a faith? I know you don't think it's a religion).

Originally posted by Halitose
Yes, constant refutation. Christianity may be consistent, maybe; but sound? No.

Which part of it? The self-inflated pontification of fundies? The orthodox tenets?
The rest of your post made me laugh. Thank you for lifting my spirits and taking my mind off the ever palpable absurdism -- my task of rolling my rock, time after time, over and nks, but I don't think I can hoodwink myself into a denial of individuality and "the self".

Unfortunately, the most basic premises of Christianity are false: that the Christian God is instantiated; that He undergirds normativity. Since Christianity is false, we can lay epistemic obligations aside and go on to ask if it has any practical utility as a method for bettering personal circumstances -- and there again, I find Christianity decidedly inferior. As a means of practice to peace of mind, Christianity is antithetical; and concerning ethical practice, we can do a lot better than the few words of wisdom scattered throughout the good book that are not convoluted with the latter false premise above.

You've found Jesus to be rationally compelling? How convenient for you: that which you find rationally compelling also somehow matches Option "B" in your false dilemma.

The "self" is very, very tricky. On sufficiently small length scales, you are, to an extremely good approximation, empty space. And regardless of whatever it may be in the noumenal world that gives rise to phenomenal being, I think it would be simply incoherent to equate that whatever with "self". So that leaves us with a conscious self composed of phenomenal interpretations: "I" am composed of thoughts, memories, reflections, deliberations, beliefs, etc. -- all of which are impermanent. So there does seem to be some conditional identity, but is there anything substantive or consistent about "I"?

Consider this koan, written by a good friend of mine:

Behind the makings of mind,
before all images, thoughts and words,
can you find an “I” that’s not just another thought,
another making of mind?