16 Sep 07
Originally posted by vistesd(3) The fact that one can make up questions that are (only) answerable under the assumption of a supernatural category, does not validate the questions themselves.
[b]Tentative Propositions—
(1) There may be aspects of the natural universe that transcend our cognitive capability.
—I see no reason to assume that we are the singular species for which that is not the case.
(2) If that is, in fact, the case, it nevertheless neither (a) requires, nor (b) of itself, warrants the assumption of a supernatural [e ...[text shortened]... some past discussions on here have led me to think it wise to get that out of the way up-front.[/b]
—E.g., What are the necessary characteristics of a supernatural supreme being?
—E.g., Under what conditions might invisible blue unicorns exist?
—E.g., Why is there anything rather than nothing?
—E.g., Why is there death?
That is, such questions have no (relevant?) meaning without the a priori assumption of a supernatural category in which they can be meaningfully entertained.
I'm not quite sure about this third proposition. Rather than requiring an a priori assumption of a supernatural category, don't the questions themselves demand one? For example, a child who honestly asks the question, "why is the universe here?", obviously isn't presupposing a supernatural category, instead it's the itself which demands one.
At the very least, such a question is not meaningless.
In some ways your philosophical paradigm strikes me as incredibly nihilistic; all meaning gobbled up by the posited "ground of all being" at the center of your idea of reality. In other ways it is quite refreshing. For instance, I admire such intellectual anarchy, as it radically divests us of any confidence in what we think we know about the way things are. However, I do wonder if your position is not also itself an assumption based on an "extra-natural" reality.
16 Sep 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes, but what a priori assumption causes you to declare that question meaningless? After all, if there is more to reality than meets the eye - something deeper (a "supernatural" aspect) - then the question certainly may have meaning. Regardless, it seems the fundamental derivative of self-consciousness is precisely that kind of existential curiosity. To immediately snuff that innate curiosity by declaring all such questions meaningless strikes me as fatally incredulous, a trait (thankfully) not inherent in the young people who ask such questions in the first place.
"Why" assumes an intelligence with motives. Thus, without an assumption of a creator the question is meaningless.
16 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesd(1) There may be aspects of the natural universe that transcend our cognitive capability.
[b]Tentative Propositions—
(1) There may be aspects of the natural universe that transcend our cognitive capability.
—I see no reason to assume that we are the singular species for which that is not the case.
(2) If that is, in fact, the case, it nevertheless neither (a) requires, nor (b) of itself, warrants the assumption of a supernatural [e ...[text shortened]... some past discussions on here have led me to think it wise to get that out of the way up-front.[/b]
(2) If that is, in fact, the case, it nevertheless neither (a) requires, nor (b) of itself, warrants the assumption of a supernatural [extranatural] category.
-----------------------------------------------
The kingdom of God and all its unseen reality, as espoused by the bible, in my view is parallel with the physical reality of which we are habitually aware. That which is designated "supernatural", that which seemingly flouts the laws of physics and our conditioned naturalism, instead of being foreign to nature is not really unnatural but merely a deeper aspect of reality. For instance, when Christ took his disciples with him up into the Mount of Transfiguration and they witnessed Him transfigured into a Being of shimmering light, talking with Moses and Elijah, that encounter, far from taking place in some philosophic never-never land, was an historic event which happened in our physical universe, in real time. Were the disciples to be wearing wrist watches, those watches would not have stopped during the event, but rather would have kept on ticking. And while the disciples witnessed Christ's transfiguration the surrounding world carried on as usual. If we were to see this event ourselves, we would more easily grasp the immanence of what we deem "supernatural" or "otherworldly". That is, the universe which we find ourselves in is a supernatural universe. That this reality may be beyond our cognitive ability may not warrant assumption of its existence, but neither does it deny it.
16 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasOccam's Razor. Why assume an intelligent being when there's no reason to? It's like asking someone "Did you stop beating your wife yet?" when they may have never been married.
Yes, but what a priori assumption causes you to declare that question meaningless? After all, if there is more to reality than meets the eye - something deeper (a "supernatural" aspect) - then the question certainly may have meaning. Regardless, it seems the fundamental derivative of self-consciousness is precisely that kind of existential curio ...[text shortened]... trait (thankfully) not inherent in the young people who ask such questions in the first place.
Assumptions cut out alternatives. It's possible there is no intelligent person which created the universe. If you simply assume there is, then you are blind to certain possibilities.
Actually, I did not declare all such questions meaningless. I said that without a certain assumption they were meaningless. That's much different.
17 Sep 07
3 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehas[/b]I'm not quite sure about this third proposition. Rather than requiring an a priori assumption of a supernatural category, don't the questions themselves demand one? For example, a child who honestly asks the question, "why is the universe here?", obviously isn't presupposing a supernatural category, instead it's the itself which demands one.
[b](3) The fact that one can make up questions that are (only) answerable under the assumption of a supernatural category, does not validate the questions themselves.
—E.g., What are the necessary characteristics of a supernatural supreme being?
—E.g., Under what conditions might invisible blue unicorns exist?
—E.g., Why is there anything rather if your position is not also itself an assumption based on an "extra-natural" reality.
Point well-taken. But what I mean is that they are such questions that cannot be answered without the assumption of a supernatural category. That is where the a priori comes in: when one assumes a category in order to give an answer other than “don’t know”—which may also assume that “don’t know” is somehow an unsatisfactory answer, or a sufficiently unsatisfactory one that it demands the creation of a whole other category in order to answer it.
As I suggested: “The fact that we have (as yet, or ever) no answers for all our existential questions does not validate making up conditions under which they might be answered, and then assuming that they have been answered.” That is, unless one can satisfactorily establish the assumed conditions a posteriori.
And that is the point: making up conditions (the supernatural category) under which such questions can be answered, and then assuming that the question has been answered. If I am able to ask: "What are the essential characteristics of faeries?", does that fact justify the assumption of the existence of a category of "reality" that includes faeries?
At some point, one needs to be honest with the child. At some point, maturity may mean accepting that not all such questions can be answered—and letting go of the demand that they be.
_________________________________
I’m not at all sure why my view should be nihilistic or anarchistic. Does the natural participation of human consciousness in interpreting the facts, patterns and the relationships of the universe into meaningful concepts itself make such an exercise nihilistic? Anarchistic?
But even if it was: you are making no more there than an “argument from terribleness”. It is like saying to someone who has been diagnosed with cancer, “Say, if you just assume that such a terrible diagnosis must be incorrect, then you’ll surely be alright.”
EDIT: Or are you labelling as nihilistic any system of thought that does not conclude to an eternal, individual "afterlife"?
17 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasThat this reality may be beyond our cognitive ability may not warrant assumption of its existence, but neither does it deny it.
[b](1) There may be aspects of the natural universe that transcend our cognitive capability.
(2) If that is, in fact, the case, it nevertheless neither (a) requires, nor (b) of itself, warrants the assumption of a supernatural [extranatural] category.
-----------------------------------------------
The kingdom of God and all its unseen rea gnitive ability may not warrant assumption of its existence, but neither does it deny it.[/b]
No it does not. And you are free to entertain that possibility. At bottom, I suspect that the only real justification one can muster for doing so is an aesthetic one—and, again, that is no mean thing to my mind; and I apply the term very broadly.
My point is that I do not think there is any epistemic justification in the assumption of an “extra-natural” category. I would expand that to include making certain assumptions about any aspect of “intra-natural” reality that transcends our cognitive abilities, and then pretending that such transcendence has been in fact overcome.
I bet you just hate “The Lady and the Tiger” type stories... 😉 Frankly, I do: they demand that I take responsibility for deciding the ending (analogously: the “meaning” ) by applying my own interpretive faculties to the story. Unfortunately (or not), we are faced with that same existential demand in our lives. We either acknowledge it, or we don’t.
17 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehas[/b]Now that I think I have a better handle on how you might be using the word “meaning” (from another thread)—
[b](3) The fact that one can make up questions that are (only) answerable under the assumption of a supernatural category, does not validate the questions themselves.
—E.g., What are the necessary characteristics of a supernatural supreme being?
—E.g., Under what conditions might invisible blue unicorns exist?
—E.g., Why is there anything rather if your position is not also itself an assumption based on an "extra-natural" reality.
Your viewpoint (and that of others who take the same position) reminds me of some who, although they enjoy concert music, will not attend a symphony concert because, after all, it’s just going to—end.
Or, someone who thinks the end is the only real event, and keeps trying to hurry the musicians along...
Or, one who can no longer enjoy the face of his beloved, because each time he looks at her he is filled with remorse at the thought that she will one day die.
“My living, my joy of music, my love—are all ‘meaningless’ because one day I will die and be gobbled up into the Brahman-Tao-Void?”
___________________________________
Transience is a law of existence. That is precisely what gives each moment its unique significance, whether it is a moment of pain or joy. Death is the price that life must pay. For me, a nihilistic view would be one that concludes that the flame is then not worth the candle. Such nihilism may be justified by the personal circumstances of one’s existence—and if belief in an individual after-life is the only thing that will alleviate nihilistic despair, (and if one can with self-integrity pull it off) so be it.
But I have known people whose lives were filled with far more tragedy than mine has been, and have passionately affirmed the flame. Without denying the law of transience at all.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by vistesdWhen I use the term "nihilistic" I am referring to the tendency of your philosophic paradigm (non-dualism) to divest human life of its natural anthropic significance. You posit a source of all things which cannot be communicated, out of which we arise, wherein every intellectual attempt to conceptualize it falls as into an abyss. One may be able to speak eloquently enough about it (the existential ground), but ultimately it is fruitless because it is beyond conceptualization. It is like an intellectual "blind spot" which we can mention but never glimpse, since we are that "blind spot." If it is true that the objective contents of our thoughts are merely the result of electro-biochemical events in our brains, and that those objective contents simply cease to exist the moment we do, then I think it can be correctly said that the ground of all being rightly divests life of any meaningful portent, since our whole lives exist as a mere superficial film upon the metaphorical "surface" of the "One." In the face of such a prospect, the best and most respectable philosophical attitude to take would be Stoicism; or some type of resignation. My particular take, and I believe it is the Christian one, is that the objective reality of the mind and the spirit take precedence over what we are aware of physically. Approaching the world philosophically as if the immediate subconscious perceptive agency of our bodies were the deepest and most profound truth about who we are is, in my view, backwards. What the soul and spirit communicate with are not exclusively physical realities. The "inward" reality of the mind and the "higher" reality of the spirit are unseen and eternal, "supernatural," and in fact take precedence over everything else, be it an existential ground or something other. We may ascribe our own meanings to things, but having faith in a "higher" or "deeper" order calls us to seek a certain objectivity wherein everything has its place; i.e. we must trade in our own meanings for the objective truth. In the Christian paradigm, all meaning arises from God; God gives everything its proper place, and gives everything a purpose.
I'm not quite sure about this third proposition. Rather than requiring an a priori assumption of a supernatural category, don't the questions themselves demand one? For example, a child who honestly asks the question, "why is the universe here?", obviously isn't presupposing a supernatural category, instead it's the itself which demands one.
Po ...[text shortened]... any system of thought that does not conclude to an eternal, individual "afterlife"?[/b]
More later...
18 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhen I use the term "nihilistic" I am referring to the tendency of your philosophic paradigm (non-dualism) to divest human life of its natural anthropic significance.
When I use the term "nihilistic" I am referring to the tendency of your philosophic paradigm (non-dualism) to divest human life of its natural anthropic significance. You posit a source of all things which cannot be communicated, out of which we arise, wherein every intellectual attempt to conceptualize it falls as into an abyss. One may be able to spe verything its proper place, and gives everything a purpose.
More later...
I really think you mean “supernatural” significance here. (Am not sure how you’re using the term “anthropic”.)
...and that those objective contents simply cease to exist the moment we do, then I think it can be correctly said that the ground of all being rightly divests life of any meaningful portent, since our whole lives exist as a mere superficial film upon the metaphorical "surface" of the "One."
If you mean portent beyond this natural existence, okay.
I don’t know that I would describe my life (or yours) as “superficial”. Any more than I would describe listening to Beethoven’s Ninth as “superficial” simply because the concert will end.
In fact, I would argue that systems positing an eternal afterlife tend to relativize this unique existence in the face of eternity.
I am not a superficial film, but a unique manifestation that is precious precisely because of its transience. In the face of that transience, "There are no ordinary moments." (Dan Millman)
In the face of such a prospect, the best and most respectable philosophical attitude to take would be Stoicism; or some type of resignation.
The only resignation necessitated in Stoicism is acceptance of what is beyond one’s control anyway. Aside from the fact that the Stoic theos is nature, and not a supernatural being, the “Serenity Prayer” is precisely Stoic. Personally, I tend to be more Sisyphean (in the sense of Camus’ Sisyphus). I am of course, resigned to death—as I am to the ending of the symphony. Call me a lively and passionate Stoic, if you wish (perhaps more like the Greek Stoics, than the Romans?).
Approaching the world philosophically as if the immediate subconscious perceptive agency of our bodies were the deepest and most profound truth about who we are is, in my view, backwards.
I don’t think I’ve said exactly that. What I have said is that the conscious but pre-conceptual (non-conceptual) experience of being is a “bedrock” beyond which we cannot get. You claim that we can, but you are already stepping back from the brink into conceptualizing-mind when you claim that whatever it might point to is effable.
To be frank, you are unsatisfied to let the ineffable mystery be just that. The tathata. The suchness of it just as it is. As Alan Watts put it: “the Which than which there can be no Whicher”. I think you are painting legs on the river...
...we must trade in our own meanings for the objective truth.
I do not see positing the supernatural category as “objective truth,” clearly. The objective truth (albeit not in a propositional sense) is just that tathata. We add conceptualization—which, as Sepia Tint pointed out in the other thread, is also in its way an aspect of our tathata. We are, as it were, map-makers—but the map is not the territory; and we also have to recognize that our maps are inescapably self-referential. I am not only in the tathata; I am of it as well.
You cannot escape from the territory to live in the map, no matter how much more satisfactory the map seems to you than what is. And that is what I think positing the supernatural does: it strives to create a map that is more satisfactory than the territory. If all that is, is removing oneself to the mansions of one’s own mind in the face of suffering, I have no criticism—as long as it is acknowledged. (Such a strategy, when necessary, is as Stoic as it is Buddhist; you can find it in Epictetus as well as Gautama.)
_______________________________________
I also think that death is a pre-eminent issue here—if not the pre-eminent one. You believe (if I am not mis-representing you) that your individual life, or anyone else’s, loses its significance in the face death. I am saying that that is precisely what imbues my life with significance. I exist now. Tomorrow I very well might not.
When I keep that in mind, it takes the pressure off, so to speak—and I can treat a discussion like this one as another theme in the symphony. When I forget that, I wander off from the symphony. I waste precious time in anxiety over things that I cannot control. Like a man listening to the orchestra (or playing), who suddenly wonders if he remembered to lock the door at home. He begins to worry. He loses track of what is before him. His mind becomes divided.
Tathata is: when you’re listening to the symphony—listen to the symphony. When you’re conversing with friends—converse with friends. When you’re cooking—cook. When you’re making love—make love. When you’re thinking—think. When you’re sleeping—sleep.
“Above all, don’t wobble!”
18 Sep 07
2 edits
You posit a source of all things which cannot be communicated, out of which we arise, wherein every intellectual attempt to conceptualize it falls as into an abyss. One may be able to speak eloquently enough about it (the existential ground), but ultimately it is fruitless because it is beyond conceptualization. It is like an intellectual "blind spot" which we can mention but never glimpse, since we are that "blind spot."
Precisely—as long as you don’t take that “source” as something separate from the cosmos (which would be dualism). It is the whole.
The “blind spot” is like a flashlight: no matter how you point it, you cannot shine the beam of light on itself. Your awareness is the same way. You can be subtly aware of being aware of something—your own thoughts, for example—and that’s as far as it goes. But you are the awareness—the very process of aware-ing.
If you are making thoughts there is content, of which (hopefully) you are aware. If you are listening to the birds sing, there is content. When you think “I”, that thought—and everything you think about it—is content. But you are the one being-aware of even that thought “I”, and everything you think about it. The aware-ing itself is not content; it is process. That is the aspect of you that is itself no-content, but only reflects on content. And, as such, is more fundamental than the content upon which it reflects. That is the Buddha-mind.
__________________________________
There is nothing mystical about it. You use it everyday. You use it to think concepts like “soul” and “spirit” and “God”. You use it to think “I”. You use it to taste your food. To be aware of emotion. You use it even in trying to talk about it, to fashion the concept “awareness” itself in order to reflect upon it, since it cannot be reflected upon directly—since it is what is doing the reflecting. (I say “it” just as a way of talking.)
That is why the Zennists talk, not of finding it, but only of realizing it. Trying to find it is like using the flashlight to look for the flashlight.
Once that realization comes upon you, in the simple non-concept-making state of being-aware, you have hit the real “bedrock.”* There is no place else to go. Then you can make in your mind whatever you want. And you will always know that you are making the making. I make my metaphysics, you make yours.
____________________________________
* That is all that meditation is, according to whatever technical form: a way of getting behind all the concept-making activity of the mind to hit that “bedrock”. I spoke before of “bedrock” in terms of the clarity of non-conceptual being-aware. The real “bedrock” is in the realization. That’s all that so-called “enlightenment” is; that’s what satori is. One can have a satori experience, and forget it, or suppress it, and go on as before with all the same old entanglements. And then it may strike one again—and again. Real satori is simply living from that realization...
[I do dislike “fancy” words like Buddha-mind and satori. That is why I have been struggling so hard to find ways to express it in more-or-less standard English, and doing a fairly bad job of it. Ah, well...]
EDIT: Quite frankly, you can forget all my posts prior to this one. It is the only one that really matters.
25 Sep 07
4 edits
Originally posted by vistesdI really think you mean “supernatural” significance here. (Am not sure how you’re using the term “anthropic”.)
When I use the term "nihilistic" I am referring to the tendency of your philosophic paradigm (non-dualism) to divest human life of its natural anthropic significance.
I really think you mean “supernatural” significance here. (Am not sure how you’re using the term “anthropic”.)
...and that those objective contents simply cease to exist the mo When you’re thinking—think. When you’re sleeping—sleep.
“Above all, don’t wobble!”
Yes, "supernatural" significance is more to the point. By using the term "anthropic" I was intending to include objective contents of thought under the same "supernatural" banner (according "supernatural" the revised definition: "deeper, underlying aspect of nature, which may or may not be readily observable." )
Whatever can be the object of sane and intelligent conversation I would refer to as having "anthropic" significance. Objective contents of thought are immaterial and can be multiple places simultaneously, therefore I speak of them in "supernatural" terms (as noted above), since the objects which make up the physical universe are not immaterial and cannot be in two places simultaneously.
In fact, I would argue that systems positing an eternal afterlife tend to relativize this unique existence in the face of eternity.
I suppose anyone can use any kind of paradigm to make the present reality seem superfluous. The supernatural element in the biblical description of reality, though, has an immanent as well as an eternal aspect. The immanent aspect of "deeper" supernatural reality is what gives "things" their inherent significance or meaning (i.e., their proper place relative to God).
I would argue that it is less difficult (perhaps more desirable) to create one's own meaning than it is to discover and appropriate the proper place of everything relative to God. If "God" is merely a nebulous, ineffable blob, then it would be as expedient for us to create our own meaning as it would be in a godless universe. However, if God is an intelligent Person with a certain character and having certain attributes, then it would be expedient for us to discover the proper place of all things relative to Him. If I were to arbitrarily place the greatest significance upon external things, such as physical beauty, such things may have a disproportionate meaning for me in contrast to their true and proper place in God's universe. Placing more importance on physical beauty than on God Himself (lust) may be desirable to me, and it may be permissible in a godless universe, yet in order to be properly adjusted to a world where all things are relative to God, I would have to radically change how I see things.
I am not a superficial film, but a unique manifestation that is precious precisely because of its transience. In the face of that transience, "There are no ordinary moments." (Dan Millman)
Yes, but "unique" and "precious" are values which you are arbitrarily giving human life. Is it not alarming to you that someone like Charles Manson can choose to give human life no meaning at all and that by acknowledging his right to do so you are agreeing with him, albeit indirectly?
The Bible acknowledges the transience of human life, "For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away" (James 4:14), yet it also proclaims human life to be precious, "Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment" (Matt. 5:21).
The bottom line being, the preciousness of human life is not something we arbitrarily arrive at; it is God Who declares human life precious. Therefore, it is precious whether we like it or not. And it has nothing to do with whether or not life will have an ending or not; life will most definitely end as we know it, i.e., preciousness is not something that arises from transience.
Personally, I think life is much more interesting, wonderful, and intellectually stimulating when it is illuminated by a deeper "supernatural" reality, wherein one discovers the significance of things in relation to an entirely Other. Reminiscent of the Jorge Luis Borges short story, "The Library of Babel," I see knowledge as something infinite and eternal, having an objective rather than a subjective reality. "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" (Rom. 11:33).
I also believe the depth of meaning and significance involved is infinitely greater than that which we can imagine ourselves.
---------------------------------------
Again, more later... (My brain is tired.) 🙂
25 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasI would argue that it is less difficult (perhaps more desirable) to create one's own meaning than it is to discover and appropriate the proper place of everything relative to God.
[b]I really think you mean “supernatural” significance here. (Am not sure how you’re using the term “anthropic”.)
Yes, "supernatural" significance is more to the point. By using the term "anthropic" I was intending to include objective contents of thought under the same "supernatural" banner (according "supernatural" the revised definition: "dee --------
Again, more later... (My brain is tired.) 🙂[/b]
My experience is precisely the opposite: it was much easier to accept that meaning was simply given by God.
Yes, but "unique" and "precious" are values which you are arbitrarily giving human life. Is it not alarming to you that someone like Charles Manson can choose to give human life no meaning at all and that by acknowledging his right to do so you are agreeing with him, albeit indirectly?
And I think you are too; only first you decide that there is a God, and then loop it all through “him”, so’s it appears to you it comes from somewhere else.
“Unique” is not a value I assign; it is an existential fact. “Precious” is an understanding in the face of transience. I doubt that Manson understood that...
Re the Manson thing: a lot of things alarm me from time to time, and a lot of them are true. You know, it seems pretty terrible sometimes to a child when the truth dawns that there really is no Santa Claus. “It would be terrible if...” is not a valid argument; there are plenty of terrible and alarming facts in the world that do not go away because they are terrible and alarming. [If you’re right, your God might punish Manson eternally; but he did not intervene to prevent his—or others’—atrocities. So people get to do all sorts of terrible deeds, God or no. Sometimes they use God to justify them; sometimes not.] And I have never acknowledged the right of a human being to cause capricious harm to another (nor to animals, for that matter). In the face of transient life, how could I?
What do you think: did Manson believe in the supernatural? Was he a sane person making a sane choice? Do you think that most Buddhists are indifferent to the behavior of a Charles Manson?
...it is God Who declares human life precious.
Our fundamental impasse. You have to assume God (the supernatural category) first in order to make such a statement.
_______________________________
With all that said—just for the sake of argument 😉—I’ll repeat that you can dismiss everything I said up until my last post in response to you (the “blind spot” one). Between the OP here, and that last post, “the bottom fell out of the bucket.”
Be well. Rest that good brain.