[Jabbrwokk]

Phanta said:

I'm going to speak on a fear of mine, and that is the more I strip my understanding of myths and fantasy and address "reality", isn't that the less I am then able to diffuse anxiety? How is this good?
This is important.

Let me try and address this by sharing a dream I had about two years ago.

This was a vivid dream. I still remember colours, sounds and what I was thinking in my dream.

I am a fan of hard sci-fi (i.e. not Star Trek or Star Wars novels, although those are fun to read in the hammock in summer) so this explains the setting. But the premise of the dream is something I will never forget.

I was exploring a new planet, looking around, taking notes of the flora and fauna and resource potential. But in my dream, I did not have any knowledge of God at all. I mean, it was like I had never even heard of or considered the concept of "God" or any kind of supernatural higher being. There simply wasn't one.
In my dream, I was not anxious and did not want for anything. There was no god, and more to the point, no conception of god at all. It was a powerful feeling and I still remember it. I was content, at peace.

After the dream I woke up profoundly shaken, and at the time thought perhaps God had given me the dream to show me how pointless existence would be without him. Now I don't interpret it as a dream of a pointless existence; I remember that feeling of contentment and peace with longing.

My point is, if you dig down and really examine your understanding of myths and fantasy, yes, you may undermine the things which hold up your understanding of the world around you. But do you really want to base your personality on things you must accept are myths? It might be painful, but you might find something else, deeper, more solid, to use as a foundation, some hard chunk of knowledge or understanding, or a better understanding of what you call The Way.

[Antlerman]

Phanta, on May 3 2009, 11:09 PM, said:

Is a lot of this from the Mack book?

Phanta

There is information from Mack's work I draw off of, namely the critical research into Christian origins through the eyes of social theory applied to textual and form criticism. It's a model I find scholarly and elegant in its explanatory powers. But largely these are "my own" thoughts, going back quite some time, which is I why I've recently found Mack very appealing. I wasn't aware of him until recently.

Actually I can almost pinpoint the beginning of these thoughts in my post-Christian life. It was some years back when I was with a friend of mine who likewise de-converted from Christianity, from the same church I attended. We graduated Bible College together. I kidded him one day about his saying "I'm so glad I know the truth now", remarking to him, "I remember you saying that same thing when we were in school together." His response to that is what began all this for me. He said in seriousness, "But the difference between then and now, is that now I really DO have the truth!"

That really struck me, and I've carried that with me ever since. It's what led me down the road of understanding the nature of how we perceive and respond to notions of truth, how we arrive at that conclusion, which was in fact just as real to him as a "believer" as it was as an atheist. I began to see how people use words as vehicles of inner ideas and impressions that gave form and life to them, gave them "reality". As a musician who writes music, I could see this existential expression in the language of music within myself, with harmonics, overtones, harmonies, etc all having correspondence with the connotations and subtle nuances of words. This led to looking a myth as a form of language which expresses these same sorts of "musical" impressions (for lack of a better word right now). I made some attempt at fleshing out some of my thoughts about it back in this thread here: Link

So anyway, I find Mack appealing because he, and other scholars like him, really give some great insights into Christian origins through ethnography. Human nature, social behaviors, etc are the "real truth", as my friend would say. There is a reality that exists outside humans, but anything we call reality is intrinsically tied to the limits of our perceptions, and the restrictions or potentials of our language. It's the latter, the potentials of language that I find myself rebuffing against literalists, both religious and rationalist who place limits on it. Reality, once defined, is closed, and the language we use to describe it creates the boundaries of our universe for us and either limits or frees the spirit.

[end3]

Quote

3) The independent self Transition ing to an independent self is the major transition of adult life. Only 25 percent of adults in our culture complete this journey. To make this transition we no longer ignore or distort the call of the soul. We face the fact that following our own path often means disappointing others, risking failure, and/or otherwise contradicting the norms that "link me to society and make me (as a socialized self) worthwhile and valuable."

This transition is particularly difficult because to make this journey, I have to let go of how I have come to define myself. I let go of the deeply held beliefs that my worth and value is tied up with what I do. I am no longer defined by cultural expectations. Now, I configure a self from the inside out for the first time." Vision springs from within. Action becomes an authentic expression of an emerging sense of inner purpose.

Leaders at this level begin to share power. it is no longer perceived as "letting go" of control but of gaining power by sharing it. The development of self and others is prized. Organizations are structured on high-performing, self-managing teams. Leadership is shared but not yet a true partnership. Creativity and critical decision making is developed and expected at all levels of the organization.

Good stuff Phanta,

Thank you for the effort. I think I must be in the beginnings or middle of stage three as I wake up these days not giving a darn about structure, of what I should be or expected to be......also this makes for a specific disdain for our minister who is sure his truth is necessary for everyone.

Again, thanks for the pen.

End3

[Antlerman]

Phanta, on May 4 2009, 03:54 PM, said:

And hopefully, as we age, our tolerances and understandings grow and expand. My understanding seems....chaotic. Fragile. Too big to start with to be helpful in functioning. Self-contradictory. Confused. I'm confused. I agree with everything you are saying, but I believe it from a deeply wounded and limited place.

Phanta

I think the only thing I can say to this is that what truth really is, as we explore this perspective and that perspective, this way or that way, is that somewhere in the middle of it, is our own sense of self found where the lines of our paths cross over each other. It's in there, that we find what is unique to us. And it's coming to terms with it, getting to know it, and gaining confidence in it. There is no path you should follow "over there" or anywhere else. It's the inner path that's your own. It's not something you really look for, but it emerges of need.

[Jabbrwokk]

Phanta, on May 4 2009, 01:07 PM, said:

Your interpretation of your dream, the meaning you made out of it, changed. What do you make of that?

All I can say is that maybe it never meant anything at all, and its only meaning is whatever I choose to give it.

Quote

I also think, "How can I be with another in love?" My story is so different from those around me. Who else is touching the part of the elephant I'm at? Anyone? I feel alone. I'm scared. Is it safe to keep moving forward on my own? Is it good? I see those people over there, all hovering around the tail, telling jokes, those at the trunk, chanting in tongues, those at the foot, squatting close to the ground, intent on cleaning out the nails. Support is good. Where are my people?

I liked your analogy, but it makes one assumption: that people are clustering in different areas to explore the "elephant" and fitting themselves into cliques and stereotypes. I think people would be moving around all over the place to check it out, and some might be sitting somewhere else refusing to believe there's an elephant at all.

[Antlerman]

All of this is quite spot on with my thoughts. I should look up this book and read what he has to say. It's really the essence of my argument for quite some time now. The way I've always stated it, how I define truth is, "Truth is what works". The words he uses are 'useful' or 'helpful'. Same thing, and I'm sure I've used those words myself as they seem appropriate. He speaks "truth". This is a useful way of looking at it that offers the helpful benefit of a framework for understanding. You see?

Phanta, on May 6 2009, 01:16 AM, said:

I think I've always been seeking the perfect perspective that describes absolutely everything. I've struggled to accept the idea of "many truths" because of a false assumption that each perspective must be wholly perfect or largely flawed, thus worth picking from, maybe, but not without disdain. I have never been brave enough to value each perspective as a partial explanation of "reality". My thoughts return to the warring fundamentalist factions that ruled my childhood. This reading is helping me open up some of my simplistic, black and white thinking.

A few points to what you said above here:

I've done a very similar thing, try to find a "theory of everything" that can incorporate all perspectives into one. In a way I could say that's possible, but in reality at best it becomes a theory, or "perspective" that has greater reach, and hence more usefulness in a given situation. And that given situation is the world, the society in which we live today. One which is full of many different languages of perspectives grown out of the many and diverse cultural and educational backgrounds. The "useful" perspective would be one that allows a more productive functionality within that environment.

So in that context Truth with a capital T, meaning an absolute that divides right from left, up from down, is incompatible with a socially impossible situation which values freedom. You will always get a certain consensus, or a shared language of perception (a mythological framework for relating the world to the act of living in it) within groups of people of similar backgrounds and experiences (a community or society), but when these groups encounter other groups with their own frameworks of perceptions, now you have to deal with differences in language and understanding. But a philosophy, a perspective, a point of view, a language that is broader than each of these is one which can be useful to all of them living in this context.

The language of science is one that can and does transcend cultures, and I acknowledge and embrace it. But its language doesn't really express that aesthetic quality very well, at least not to the masses in easily accessible symbolic ways. It doesn't offer anecdotes, symbols of heroic individuals, ideals of society, etc. through which people translate them into the act of living, the act of relating to the themselves, their societies within the world itself. Granted, it certainly can offer a way to access the beautiful in nature, but it's language systems aren't all that "transportable" to put it into thought. It seems too esoteric for a general usefulness.

To try to tie this into this point, this "theory of everything", at best is system of perception that allows for a broader-based inclusion of multiple perspectives without violating the validity of any. To me it's recognizing the underlying message, the desire, the hope, the purpose, the function, behind the choice of symbols people are using, and hoping to connect in some common perception that recognizes each other in the middle. Now is this perception itself, the ultimate truth? No. To throw a wrench into it, it depends what someone is trying to accomplish. If a society sees a need to become xenophobic, then a truth that brings everyone together would work against that. Now it's a matter of choice as to "truth", to serve a function. So at some point, truth becomes incompatible. You can't have unity if the goal is division.

So as to what truth is the right one, which one is really true? The question needs to be in the context of asking, which way of thinking, which perspective is the most valuable to my goals? We create heaven or hell with our words, but we choose the path based on what we perceive as valuable to us. All the rest is simply vocabulary.

Phanta, on May 6 2009, 01:16 AM, said:

On a personal note, I've been trying to experience reality "in the raw" for a long, long, time. I thought that is what the truly good, open-minded person does. It's been an exhausting effort all these years. It's an odd relief to see that not only do I not have to do that, but it's not even remotely realistic.

Here's a interesting thought for you to ponder before I have to go here. This "reality in the raw", is what I would call the Existential Experience. What that is, is the individual experiencing a certain "transcendent" perception of reality - from within themselves. It's that experience, that opening up of ones inner self to "the ultimate reality", that opens perspectives within. I had such an experience myself which I would attribute as a genuine touchstone of my own inner sense of ultimate reality. But I would not claim it to be any objective ultimate reality. It was the ultimate reality of life for me. (You can read about it here if you wish).

The experience of it took on various symbolic features, but those I see as manifestations of the language of my culture. From this I would say it is a way for me to see beyond what I get caught up in within my daily grind of seeing the world through my immediate two-eyes. I see religious meditation, prayer, ritual, myth, etc as means to attempt to see beyond that more singular vision to one of another perspective. Sadly, as that perspective becomes dogma, it now fails to be useful anymore. And why I left it.


Sorry if this seemed a bit wandering in thought, but I wrote it while waking up with coffee in hand. Keep it coming. This is good.

[Rev R]

Phanta, on May 6 2009, 02:16 AM, said:

On a personal note, I've been trying to experience reality "in the raw" for a long, long, time. I thought that is what the truly good, open-minded person does. It's been an exhausting effort all these years. It's an odd relief to see that not only do I not have to do that, but it's not even remotely realistic.

Heya Phanta,

In my experience viewing "reality in the raw" is very realistic. Where the problem lies is in communicating this experience.

R

[R. S. Martin]

end3, on May 1 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

I realize it is hard to believe, but I think even I am swayed by previous concepts of God. As it title kind of speaks for itself, would a God concept make itself known to children born today? Any other thoughts are surely welcome as well.

Thanks..

Well, I was born quite a while ago but no god concept made itself known to me then or now. I twisted my brain as hard as I could to accommodate a god concept and finally I gave it up.

I've tried really hard to get back into my childhood mentality to figure out why it never "took" with me but it just didn't. I might have been around five or six years old when Mom tried telling me about this god thing that was everywhere and could see me but I couldn't see it. Rather spooky concept to tell a child after dark in a dimly lit house where there's no electricity but so she did.

When I got older I was introduced to a simple bible story book with pictures, which made it somewhat more realistic, but still--neither Adam nor Moses nor Jesus dressed like my Dad. All of them wore night-gowns for heaven's sake! Not that Adam bothered with even that much covering.

Another piece of evidence--and this one was more real than perhaps anything else--was the rejuvenating earth each spring and the fruit it brought forth each summer to be harvested in due season. So my mother tried to convince me. Somehow, it simply didn't "take." There are a number of possibilities.

One possibility is her argument that there is no other explanation for things happening this way other than that God does it. Too bad she didn't take into account how easily that argument is proved wrong by simple observation any farm girl. Another possibility is that my child's mind had already observed that the seasonal changes occur naturally according to a set pattern that has nothing to do with a "higher power." Yet a third possibility is that she had already at some earlier point explained the detailed unfolding of growing plants in such a logical manner that my mind automatically rejected this new and mystical explanation.

I am at the moment reading history of thought literature and I'm finding that for at least three thousand years there have always been thinkers who rejected the idea of a supernatural entity or god concept. It is not in-born, it is indoctrinated. I've also studied religion and its possible origins. I do not think that it is totally based on stories. I think it is a mix of psychological events and ignorance of the universe, mixed with a desperate need to understand the unknowable, also known as FEAR.

If you can figure out that it was because your co-wife was jealous of your status with your shared husband that the hut collapsed on her (and killed her) and not you, you will feel a lot safer than if you think it was a random act of nature. Or if you're a man, if you can figure out that it was Zeus's displeasure due to your brother's conniving to get the larger share of the hunt that caused the tree to fall on him and kill him (rather than you) in the thunder storm, you're going to feel a lot safer than if you think it was a random act of nature.

And right there you've got two of the Ten Commandments:

• Thou shalt not covet (co-wife), and
  
• Thou shalt not steal (brother).

That's how some of my thinking goes. You might be interested in Karen Armstrong's History of God. I've heard it's really good. I haven't read it and you shouldn't take my word for it, but I would guess Armstrong reviews the developing concept of god over time and cultures.

[Antlerman]

Phanta, on May 6 2009, 08:11 AM, said:

Are you a shrink, Antlerman?

No. I've pretty much stayed 6' 3" since I turned 15. I suppose when I get up into my 80's I may begin shrinking some. However my waist is shrinking some though. I've lost 10 pounds, and need to shrink it down another 10 and I'll be the right weight again for my height. (It was after quit smoking when I gained it). What can I say?





Kidding... No, I'm not a shrink.

Phanta, on May 6 2009, 08:11 AM, said:

Ok, despite my earlier assertion that I'm too tired to converse, I'm going to address one more thing you wrote:

"I've done a very similar thing, try to find a "theory of everything" that can incorporate all perspectives into one. In a way I could say that's possible, but in reality at best it becomes a theory, or "perspective" that has greater reach, and hence more usefulness in a given situation. And that given situation is the world, the society in which we live today. One which is full of many different languages of perspectives grown out of the many and diverse cultural and educational backgrounds. The "useful" perspective would be one that allows a more productive functionality within that environment. "

The assumption here is that the perspective with greater reach--I'm going to call this the more inclusive perspective-- is the more useful. My first thought is, "Is that true?" Does it really allow for more productive functionality? What is your evidence that inclusion increases functionality? Are there any losses in such a perspective, or only gains?

I ask because widening my perspective seemed to result in a frightening loss of personal stability recently, and sometimes widening my perspective leads to further peace and acceptance (Kumbaya).

Getting back to serious thoughts here... I did mention in that post that what is seen as "better" really depends on what someone is trying to accomplish. But more to your point about stability in this context. That's a very good question to raise. I think another way to ask it might be, is information or awareness always necessarily a good thing? Could say, pulling the wool off of someone's eyes necessarily, really in their best interest? It's kind of that "terrible secret" that people may not be ready for.

I would never, ever actively seek to destroy someone's beliefs for reasons of protecting my own sense of structure, let alone out of any sort of symbolic action of aggression using some individual in some personal attack at some symbol itself. But I think in this environment, this site, I perceive that those who enter do so for some reason of question, or doubt, or need for something more than what the system they we trying to find a place within was failing them. So, even though exposure to 'threatening' ideas occurs, I see it as a type of 'self-exposure'. They came here ready to face something within; ready to confront that void.

To try to illustrate what I'm trying to say. I love music. I have a hi-fi stereo system. Every new component I add to it, every upgrade, reveal more nuance, more dynamic, more emotion, more soul. Yet along with that... if you have an inferior source: a poorly manufactured recording, a weak performance, a badly engineered session, you will hear it. You will see the weakness, and what might otherwise escape notice and it's 'enjoyment' was achieved through a sort of filling in the gaps through imagination, now become apparent as to its true nature. On the positive side, a well engineered, well performed, well manufactured recording become exquisite! The experience of this is sublime, beautiful, inspiring, provoking, and transcendent.

It's much the same thing in gaining awareness: looking into the Void. It can be a terrifying experience to look into the face of the Universe, as it were. But if we move past the complacency, the fear and dread, the anxiety of seeing into it, what we find is in fact the face of God staring back at us, and that face is our own! And it is that terrifying realization that both devastates and saves, so to speak. Not an easy place to come to, to be sure.

As I mentioned before that it really depends on what someone is hoping to find that determines what "truth" is "better", this is what I mean. What is it you're hoping to find? I've said before, what I understand in retrospect is that I did not leave this religious system I did because "it was a lie". I left because it didn't work - for what I was existentially seeking to "hear". Its vocabulary held back the truth I sought under veils. Reality is us.

[end3]

R. S. Martin, on May 6 2009, 06:00 PM, said:

end3, on May 1 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

I realize it is hard to believe, but I think even I am swayed by previous concepts of God. As it title kind of speaks for itself, would a God concept make itself known to children born today? Any other thoughts are surely welcome as well.

Thanks..

Well, I was born quite a while ago but no god concept made itself known to me then or now. I twisted my brain as hard as I could to accommodate a god concept and finally I gave it up.

I've tried really hard to get back into my childhood mentality to figure out why it never "took" with me but it just didn't. I might have been around five or six years old when Mom tried telling me about this god thing that was everywhere and could see me but I couldn't see it. Rather spooky concept to tell a child after dark in a dimly lit house where there's no electricity but so she did.

When I got older I was introduced to a simple bible story book with pictures, which made it somewhat more realistic, but still--neither Adam nor Moses nor Jesus dressed like my Dad. All of them wore night-gowns for heaven's sake! Not that Adam bothered with even that much covering.

Another piece of evidence--and this one was more real than perhaps anything else--was the rejuvenating earth each spring and the fruit it brought forth each summer to be harvested in due season. So my mother tried to convince me. Somehow, it simply didn't "take." There are a number of possibilities.

One possibility is her argument that there is no other explanation for things happening this way other than that God does it. Too bad she didn't take into account how easily that argument is proved wrong by simple observation any farm girl. Another possibility is that my child's mind had already observed that the seasonal changes occur naturally according to a set pattern that has nothing to do with a "higher power." Yet a third possibility is that she had already at some earlier point explained the detailed unfolding of growing plants in such a logical manner that my mind automatically rejected this new and mystical explanation.

I am at the moment reading history of thought literature and I'm finding that for at least three thousand years there have always been thinkers who rejected the idea of a supernatural entity or god concept. It is not in-born, it is indoctrinated. I've also studied religion and its possible origins. I do not think that it is totally based on stories. I think it is a mix of psychological events and ignorance of the universe, mixed with a desperate need to understand the unknowable, also known as FEAR.

If you can figure out that it was because your co-wife was jealous of your status with your shared husband that the hut collapsed on her (and killed her) and not you, you will feel a lot safer than if you think it was a random act of nature. Or if you're a man, if you can figure out that it was Zeus's displeasure due to your brother's conniving to get the larger share of the hunt that caused the tree to fall on him and kill him (rather than you) in the thunder storm, you're going to feel a lot safer than if you think it was a random act of nature.

And right there you've got two of the Ten Commandments:

• Thou shalt not covet (co-wife), and
  
• Thou shalt not steal (brother).

That's how some of my thinking goes. You might be interested in Karen Armstrong's History of God. I've heard it's really good. I haven't read it and you shouldn't take my word for it, but I would guess Armstrong reviews the developing concept of god over time and cultures.

Thank you Ruby, I can at least acknowledge those thoughts now. Thanks again.

[end3]

Quote

But I think in this environment, this site, I perceive that those who enter do so for some reason of question, or doubt, or need for something more than what the system they we trying to find a place within was failing them. So, even though exposure to 'threatening' ideas occurs, I see it as a type of 'self-exposure'. They came here ready to face something within; ready to confront that void.

K, have you found that void to be filled in your search? Be honest please. I am starting to see other perspectives being on equal footing via the human "eye", and I guess that is all we have, but I find very little that proves and sustains us as full....therein the proof and exemplified in your next statement.....always having to add to your sound system, or recording, or refinement in some manner. And I will acknowledge brief glimpses of quenched thirst, but back to the store, or site, or church, or whatever to keep looking......

Quote

To try to illustrate what I'm trying to say. I love music. I have a hi-fi stereo system. Every new component I add to it, every upgrade, reveal more nuance, more dynamic, more emotion, more soul. Yet along with that... if you have an inferior source: a poorly manufactured recording, a weak performance, a badly engineered session, you will hear it. You will see the weakness, and what might otherwise escape notice and it's 'enjoyment' was achieved through a sort of filling in the gaps through imagination, now become apparent as to its true nature. On the positive side, a well engineered, well performed, well manufactured recording become exquisite! The experience of this is sublime, beautiful, inspiring, provoking, and transcendent.

This post has been edited by end3: 06 May 2009 - 09:51 PM

[R. S. Martin]

end3, on May 6 2009, 10:33 PM, said:

Thank you Ruby, I can at least acknowledge those thoughts now. Thanks again.

You're welcome, End3.

[Antlerman]

[quote name='end3' post='451743' date='May 6 2009, 09:49 PM'][quote]But I think in this environment, this site, I perceive that those who enter do so for some reason of question, or doubt, or need for something more than what the system they we trying to find a place within was failing them. So, even though exposure to 'threatening' ideas occurs, I see it as a type of 'self-exposure'. They came here ready to face something within; ready to confront that void.[/quote]

K, have you found that void to be filled in your search? Be honest please. I am starting to see other perspectives being on equal footing via the human "eye", and I guess that is all we have, but I find very little that proves and sustains us as full....therein the proof and exemplified in your next statement.....always having to add to your sound system, or recording, or refinement in some manner. And I will acknowledge brief glimpses of quenched thirst, but back to the store, or site, or church, or whatever to keep looking......
[/quote]
I think you may misunderstand what I mean by the void. I'm not talking about "filling the void", but confronting the void. It's in that confrontation, that you find meaning. It's coming to terms with that emptiness that you see no other face but the only one that can save you. Your own. God's.


Here's an except of a poem by Edna St. Vincent Millay call Renasence, which to me captures it, using the language of "God" to describe this human, existential awakening:

[quote]Deep in the earth I rested now;
Cool is its hand upon the brow
And soft its breast beneath the head
Of one who is so gladly dead.
And all at once, and over all
The pitying rain began to fall;
I lay and heard each pattering hoof
Upon my lowly, thatched roof,
And seemed to love the sound far more
Than ever I had done before.
For rain it hath a friendly sound
To one who's six feet underground;
And scarce the friendly voice or face:
A grave is such a quiet place.

The rain, I said, is kind to come
And speak to me in my new home.
I would I were alive again
To kiss the fingers of the rain,
To drink into my eyes the shine
Of every slanting silver line,
To catch the freshened, fragrant breeze
From drenched and dripping apple-trees.
For soon the shower will be done,
And then the broad face of the sun
Will laugh above the rain-soaked earth
Until the world with answering mirth
Shakes joyously, and each round drop
Rolls, twinkling, from its grass-blade top.
How can I bear it; buried here,
While overhead the sky grows clear
And blue again after the storm?
O, multi-colored, multiform,
Beloved beauty over me,
That I shall never, never see
Again! Spring-silver, autumn-gold,
That I shall never more behold!
Sleeping your myriad magics through,
Close-sepulchred away from you!
O God, I cried, give me new birth,
And put me back upon the earth!
Upset each cloud's gigantic gourd
And let the heavy rain, down-poured
In one big torrent, set me free,
Washing my grave away from me!

I ceased; and through the breathless hush
That answered me, the far-off rush
Of herald wings came whispering
Like music down the vibrant string
Of my ascending prayer, and -- crash!
Before the wild wind's whistling lash
The startled storm-clouds reared on high
And plunged in terror down the sky,
And the big rain in one black wave
Fell from the sky and struck my grave.
I know not how such things can be;
I only know there came to me
A fragrance such as never clings
To aught save happy living things;
A sound as of some joyous elf
Singing sweet songs to please himself,
And, through and over everything,
A sense of glad awakening.
The grass, a-tiptoe at my ear,
Whispering to me I could hear;
I felt the rain's cool finger-tips
Brushed tenderly across my lips,
Laid gently on my sealed sight,
And all at once the heavy night
Fell from my eyes and I could see, --
A drenched and dripping apple-tree,
A last long line of silver rain,
A sky grown clear and blue again.
And as I looked a quickening gust
Of wind blew up to me and thrust
Into my face a miracle
Of orchard-breath, and with the smell, --
I know not how such things can be! --
I breathed my soul back into me.
Ah! Up then from the ground sprang I
And hailed the earth with such a cry
As is not heard save from a man
Who has been dead, and lives again.
About the trees my arms I wound;
Like one gone mad I hugged the ground;
I raised my quivering arms on high;
I laughed and laughed into the sky,
Till at my throat a strangling sob
Caught fiercely, and a great heart-throb
Sent instant tears into my eyes;
O God, I cried, no dark disguise
Can e'er hereafter hide from me
Thy radiant identity!
Thou canst not move across the grass
But my quick eyes will see Thee pass,
Nor speak, however silently,
But my hushed voice will answer Thee.
I know the path that tells Thy way
Through the cool eve of every day;
God, I can push the grass apart
And lay my finger on Thy heart!

The world stands out on either side
No wider than the heart is wide;
Above the world is stretched the sky, --
No higher than the soul is high.
The heart can push the sea and land
Farther away on either hand;
The soul can split the sky in two,
And let the face of God shine through.
But East and West will pinch the heart
That can not keep them pushed apart;
And he whose soul is flat -- the sky
Will cave in on him by and by.[/quote]

The whole poem can be found here: [url="http://theotherpages.org/poems/millay03.html"]http://theotherpages.org/poems/millay03.html[/url]

[Abiyoyo]

I wanted to add this to the topic. Here in this excerpt, this factoid refers to children, but I have been told that it continues, maybe to a slightly less degree in adult life. To convey the truth about something is in my opinion based upon what we have knowledge to believe. If truth underlined in this sense requires the individual knowledge and experience of each person, then it is based upon what we have seen through our entire life. We still hold true subliminal characteristics from childhood, yet we process in an adult form.
AOA

Quote

A child needs many abilities to succeed in school. Good vision is a key. It has been estimated that as much as 80% of the learning a child does occurs through his or her eyes. Reading, writing, chalkboard work, and using computers are among the visual tasks students perform daily. A child's eyes are constantly in use in the classroom and at play. When his or her vision is not functioning properly, education and participation in sports can suffer.

The adult may process diffrent based upon their individual knowledge of 'life' through the visual perceptions from childhood. For example, A child may learn that yellow jellybeans are great because they are banana flavored. This child becomes an adult, walking through their work area, and sees a bowl sitting on someones desk full of yellow jellybeans.

The person would conclude based on their visual knowledge that those are 'the good ones', and even see their coworker at lunch and entertain conversation. These too become friends sharing work with each other, communing etc. One day at the new friends desk, he sees some yellow jellybeans with joy and eats a few of them when the new friend was getting something out of their drawer. The man yells, No! Too late. The jelly beans were vomit flavored.

My POV is that even though visual knowledge is acquired greatly in childhood, it does roll into adult life as well. I love to watch programs about controversial symbolism and how it became symbolized. I also love it when the symbols they are speaking of are ones that we have seen our entire lives and had no idea the symbols meant what they did.

This post has been edited by YoYo: 06 May 2009 - 10:53 PM

[R. S. Martin]

YoYo, on May 6 2009, 11:49 PM, said:

AOA

Quote

A child needs many abilities to succeed in school. Good vision is a key. It has been estimated that as much as 80% of the learning a child does occurs through his or her eyes. Reading, writing, chalkboard work, and using computers are among the visual tasks students perform daily. A child's eyes are constantly in use in the classroom and at play. When his or her vision is not functioning properly, education and participation in sports can suffer.

The adult may process diffrent based upon their individual knowledge of 'life' through the visual perceptions from childhood. For example, A child may learn that yellow jellybeans are great because they are banana flavored. This child becomes an adult, walking through their work area, and sees a bowl sitting on someones desk full of yellow jellybeans.

The person would conclude based on their visual knowledge that those are 'the good ones', and even see their coworker at lunch and entertain conversation. These too become friends sharing work with each other, communing etc. One day at the new friends desk, he sees some yellow jellybeans with joy and eats a few of them when the new friend was getting something out of their drawer. The man yells, No! Too late. The jelly beans were vomit flavored.

I don't know where you get this idea but it does not sound realistic. No ethical person would keep such candy on his desk.

Also, I think you over-rate the role of vision. Many people live their entire lives with impaired vision and do just fine in education, social, and work life. I was born with impaired vision, as were several others of my siblings, and we compensate in so many other ways that we live normal lives (with minor adjustments on a daily basis) despite this slight handicap. I'd hate to lose what vision I have but if I had to choose between blindness and being deaf, I'd definitely choose blindness. My hearing is so sharp that it makes up for many of the things I can't see.

You are correct in that what we learn as children tends to go with us in adulthood. I grew up in a home without electricity. During the winter months, from about November through February, there would be long, dark evenings in which much work still needed doing. I don't think my parents realized how difficult it was for us to see in the poor lighting in which we were expected to work. I learned how to fill the fuel tanks of lamps and lanterns by touch and sound in the semi-darkness of early evening--touch told me where the holes were for pouring the fuel and sound told me when the tanks were full. The same skills applied to very many other tasks. Sound and touch continue to supplement my vision, aided by smell.

BTW, when I see yellow jelly beans, I think lemon. Never had banana-flavoured jelly beans.

[chefranden]

end3, on May 1 2009, 11:36 AM, said:

I realize it is hard to believe, but I think even I am swayed by previous concepts of God. As it title kind of speaks for itself, would a God concept make itself known to children born today? Any other thoughts are surely welcome as well.
Thanks..

If you could raise a pack of children without any contact with adults* and let them raise a few generations in isolation from other society I think that you would get a god or two out of the mess.


*I can't imagine how this would be done.

[oddbird1963]

Phanta, on Jun 1 2009, 08:11 AM, said:

Quote

The eighth face of history, the religious, is both the oldest and newest concept. The Bible is the best example of this type of historical writing int he past. This way of viewing history looks upon events as a struggle between good and evil, between morality and immorality. Most Jewish history, until recent times, has been written from this viewpoint.

The religious way of writing history has become discredited in modern times. But it has been resurrected by a new genre of writers known as "existentialist theologians," such as the Roman Catholic Jacques Maritian, the Russian Orthodox Catholic Nikolai Berdyaev, the Protestant Paul Tillach, and the Jewish Martin Buber. In essence, these existential theologians hold that though God may not interfere directly in the shaping of history, it is the relationship which man thinks exists between him and God that does shape history. We are so obsessed today by the notion that only "scientific facts" have validity, we are inclined to forget that people holding "unscientific", unprovable ideas may determine the course of history more often than do rational facts.

This idea that a religious system doesn't have to be "factual" to be a powerful (and even positive) human force, it only needs to approximate reality well enough...to be believed.

Phanta

Phanta, that's a great quote.

I think that's what Valerie Talco alluded to in her second post on cognitive psychology. Religion creates a virtual world that propounds a version of reality similar to the observable world, but with just enough wild claims that require the valued trait of "belief" or "faith" to continue inhabiting that virtual world. Of course the virtual world requires injections of money from time to time in order to be allowed to inhabit and "benefit" from the comfort and inspiration the virtual world claims to provide.

[oddbird1963]

Hey Phanta,

The article I spoke of is in the blogs section: Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science: Part 2 of 6 .

The virtual world language is mind, but Valerie Tarco mentioned how religious narratives tend to be cast in terms of the familiar, laced with details that are extraordinary. In my opinion, this creates the imagined relationship with a god that moves people who, in reaction to the belief in that virtual reality, change history.

[nightflight]

What all the churches have in common, all the many religious books, all the disparate religions themselves, is language. The assumption they all make is that the "abracadabra" of religious language somehow translates to reality—but of course it does not. Without language, without the ability to point to and quote words from so-called "sacred" books, where else does religion exist? Isn't it obvious that "God" is only a word, or "Heaven" or "Hell" or "Soul" or "Life-After-Death" since without these words—and all the words used to define and defend them—they're no where to be found. Where is "God" beyond the word 'God'? Where is "Heaven" beyond the word 'Heaven'? Or 'Soul'? Or 'Angel'? Or 'Miracle'? This is the primary reason that religious groups are all fired-up to defend their particular religious books as being "God's Word" or 'Inerrant" or "Inspired" because without their books they have nothing else to point to. They need to point to their "abracadabra" over and over again, quote scripture, tirelessly argue and defend the "truth" of their Bibles or Korans or Books of Mormon, sometimes even to the death, because without these they have nowhere else to point. Simply put, if all words and language were to suddenly vanish, the natural world, the real world, wouldn't change one iota, but all religion would suddenly become impossible. Religion exists inside of language, because of language, and when language is removed from the equation so is religion. None of us would have had any reason to believe in any religious claim or doctrine if we hadn't heard or read or been told about it first. Religion is not a natural occurrence. It is word-based and artificial, therefore man-made.

http://www.control-z...s/magthink.html

Craig Duckett's site goes into to this, how religion is built on what he calls "the artifice of words".

[Antlerman]

nightflight, on Jun 2 2009, 11:19 AM, said:

What all the churches have in common, all the many religious books, all the disparate religions themselves, is language. The assumption they all make is that the "abracadabra" of religious language somehow translates to reality—but of course it does not.

But of course it does! Absolutely, this is what language does for everyone! Our words create reality for us. They form the depths, heights, width, and all the subtle dimensions of reality for us. They give substance and character to our experience of it, and either opens or closes the limits of reality in the human-world. They describe our perceptions, and those descriptions become integrated into the experience of it, soon becoming assumptions of nature, and the experience of nature itself. The natural world to us. Reality.

Human's create their world they live in through words. Ironically, "In the beginning was the Word... all things were made through 'him' (her, them)..."

nightflight, on Jun 2 2009, 11:19 AM, said:

Without language, without the ability to point to and quote words from so-called "sacred" books, where else does religion exist?

Where does any idea exist without words?

But a question to challenge you with, where did those words come from that made the religion?

nightflight, on Jun 2 2009, 11:19 AM, said:

Isn't it obvious that "God" is only a word, or "Heaven" or "Hell" or "Soul" or "Life-After-Death" since without these words—and all the words used to define and defend them—they're no where to be found. Where is "God" beyond the word 'God'? Where is "Heaven" beyond the word 'Heaven'? Or 'Soul'? Or 'Angel'? Or 'Miracle'?

But they do exist beyond the words. God exists because people believe it. God exists in their perceptions, and its a handy word to express it. It's reality of the world through concept. The interaction with the belief, through the language (symbols, words, rituals, customs, traditions) creates its substance and its reality. They are found in society. They exist outside the individual, and the individual participates with it and appropriates it into themselves. That is reality. A created reality, but real nonetheless.

nightflight, on Jun 2 2009, 11:19 AM, said:

This is the primary reason that religious groups are all fired-up to defend their particular religious books as being "God's Word" or 'Inerrant" or "Inspired" because without their books they have nothing else to point to.

Tradition. Culture. Those are other things they point to as well as a sacred text. In some branches of the faith in fact, those are considered equally as important as the text.

nightflight, on Jun 2 2009, 11:19 AM, said:

They need to point to their "abracadabra" over and over again, quote scripture, tirelessly argue and defend the "truth" of their Bibles or Korans or Books of Mormon, sometimes even to the death, because without these they have nowhere else to point. Simply put, if all words and language were to suddenly vanish, the natural world, the real world, wouldn't change one iota, but all religion would suddenly become impossible. Religion exists inside of language, because of language, and when language is removed from the equation so is religion.

This could be said to all of human reality. Remove any words and what do you have? You reduce humanity to little more just biological animals acting on impulse and instinct. Interactions with our environment and others would be driven by nature only, eating, having sex, etc. We would have no human-world without words.

nightflight, on Jun 2 2009, 11:19 AM, said:

None of us would have had any reason to believe in any religious claim or doctrine if we hadn't heard or read or been told about it first. Religion is not a natural occurrence. It is word-based and artificial, therefore man-made.

Human culture is not a natural occurrence either. It is not created by nature. It is created by humans. Although you could say that because humans are part of nature, and we create our human-world through ideas and words, this is therefore natural. If so, then you have to equally say that religion is created by nature, through us. Religion is a human-created reality, just as culture is. Take away the words of the culture, and poof it's gone too.

This doesn't betray a weakness in religion that it depends on words. Every human-created reality does.