Thoughts on Christianity

[florduh]

I would hope some active believers take time to watch this and comment.

 

 

[midniterider]

Good video. The bible has several scriptures which mention Watts' "Real" Good News, such as Exodus 3:14, John 10:38 like he mentioned, and Luke 17:21. A more memorable one for me is John 14:20. This is what I asked my pastor about. What was the meaning of those words? He ignored my question and referred me to some other scripture a bit less dangerous (and less liberating).

[florduh]

I think this video might make any Christian who is still able to think, think. I also think many would be afraid to even look. Hopefully, some will discuss the points raised.

[Joshpantera]

Let's have some accountability for the example in John 14:6-7:

 

⁶ Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ⁷ If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.^[d] From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

 

This is used by so many people to claim that christianity is the only way, period. And within christianity their particular interpretive beliefs, in particular. But considering Jesus representing this realization, this mystical realization, than there's really no other way of interpreting what he means by "me" in verse 6. The whole context of everything else points to this central mystical realization being the key or code that then opens up the deeper meaning of the teachings. And then that also explains verse 7 where people have seen the father per this expression of the central mystical realization "me", which, can be experienced through any cultural means as Watts mentioned. The realization in question here is not in any way limited to any one religion. 

 

This grossly misused verse in John is something that I'd like to see some christian wise guys or gals account for here. 

 

Pretty please? 

 

 

[Geezer]

Bart Ehrman, among other bible scholars, has validated that the bible people have in their hands now has been edited, redacted, & rewritten more times than there are even words in it.  There is also a 100 year black out period extending from the first century to the second century where virtually all the existing documents were lost or destroyed. In other words there are no historical records. 

 

Aside from that, the stories you read about in the Bible are theological myths not historical events, including the characters in the stories. In other words the sacred Bible is completely unreliable. 

 

So, why would a nonbeliever even engage a believer about what the Bible says or means? Believers think it's the literal words of God whereas it is simply a collection of myths, legends, & folklore. 

 

Debating the Bible is a waste of every bodies time.

 

[Joshpantera]

We're asking believers to respond to the video, which outlines what the myth is saying - the points the myth is making. And the points of the myth outlined in the video are out of alignment with the way in which nearly every christian understands their mythological stories. 

 

This is a place for them to step up and discuss some of the points raised. 

 

Do you understand where this is headed? 

 

Do they? 

 

Let's find out...

 

 

[Guest end3]

 

Let's have some accountability for the example in John 14:6-7:

 

⁶ Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ⁷ If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.^[d] From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

 

This is used by so many people to claim that christianity is the only way, period. And within christianity their particular interpretive beliefs, in particular. But considering Jesus representing this realization, this mystical realization, than there's really no other way of interpreting what he means by "me" in verse 6. The whole context of everything else points to this central mystical realization being the key or code that then opens up the deeper meaning of the teachings. And then that also explains verse 7 where people have seen the father per this expression of the central mystical realization "me", which, can be experienced through any cultural means as Watts mentioned. The realization in question here is not in any way limited to any one religion. 

 

This grossly misused verse in John is something that I'd like to see some christian wise guys or gals account for here. 

 

Pretty please? 

 

 

Not quite sure what you are saying here J.  What comes to mind is the special nature of Christ's conception making him unique, and then making him the only way.

[knightcore]

 

Not quite sure what you are saying here J.  What comes to mind is the special nature of Christ's conception making him unique, and then making him the only way.

 

Not to speak for Josh but I believe what he's trying to say is that it's an allegory like a lot of the bible is.

[Guest]

 

Let's have some accountability for the example in John 14:6-7:

 

⁶ Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ⁷ If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.^[d] From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

 

This is used by so many people to claim that christianity is the only way, period. And within christianity their particular interpretive beliefs, in particular. But considering Jesus representing this realization, this mystical realization, than there's really no other way of interpreting what he means by "me" in verse 6. The whole context of everything else points to this central mystical realization being the key or code that then opens up the deeper meaning of the teachings. And then that also explains verse 7 where people have seen the father per this expression of the central mystical realization "me", which, can be experienced through any cultural means as Watts mentioned. The realization in question here is not in any way limited to any one religion. 

 

This grossly misused verse in John is something that I'd like to see some christian wise guys or gals account for here. 

 

Pretty please? 

 

 

The Bible is an absolutist monotheistic religion, of course it claims it is the only way.  For pete's sake, the name of the Church in Acts was, The Way.  John is a particularly difficult text because there are themes, such as Jesus or the Father drawing or allowing certain people to come as mentioned in John 6, 17 and also here in 14.  So let's note the question in its context:

 

“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me. ² My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?³ And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. ⁴ You know the way to the place where I am going.”

⁵ Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

⁶ Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ⁷ If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

 

Jesus is obviously here talking about going to be with the Father, which would be occasioned upon this death and ascension, but it initiates a question from the disciples who are the only ones present.  "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"  A confused response of course, since Jesus is speaking in veiled archaic language but he is talking basically about heaven or paradise in the first section, so his retort in v.6 is all about how they can know the way.  So he specifically responds, "I am the way," and that if you really know me then you know the Father as no one can come to the Father except through Jesus.  

 

I don't really get where you're going with this mystical interpretation, but it seems to ignore the direct context and plain meaning of the text where it does mean to state an absolutist declaration that Jesus is the way the truth and the life, and that the only way to the father is through him.  Otherwise, why would he tell the disciples this when they asked how to get there?  Wouldn't some pluralistic religious answer be, "there are many paths, but Jesus is an okay one too." That doesn't seem to be the NT message, and we shouldn't kid ourselves on this board and think that Christianity can coherently be watered down to some purely mystical religion, the text has a context historically and as it concerns the rest of the text written from which you extract your proof texts.

[Joshpantera]

 

Not quite sure what you are saying here J.  What comes to mind is the special nature of Christ's conception making him unique, and then making him the only way.

 

See, both the believer and non-believer response both lack in understanding as of yet. I'm not sure if that's because you guys haven't watched the video in full or don't understand what Watt's described in the video? 

 

 

I don't really get where you're going with this mystical interpretation, but it seems to ignore the direct context and plain meaning of the text where it does mean to state an absolutist declaration that Jesus is the way the truth and the life, and that the only way to the father is through him.  Otherwise, why would he tell the disciples this when they asked how to get there?  Wouldn't some pluralistic religious answer be, "there are many paths, but Jesus is an okay one too." That doesn't seem to be the NT message, and we shouldn't kid ourselves on this board and think that Christianity can coherently be watered down to some purely mystical religion, the text has a context historically and as it concerns the rest of the text written from which you extract your proof texts.

 

Ok, we start off with two examples of completely missing the point of what was covered in the video, the first missing from a believer view, the second missing it from a non-believer view. This is the most common responses you'll generally find to this content, BTW. So I'm going to see if we can get past these introductory stages to where what's being said is understood well for some greater depth on the commentary end. 

 

The King James translation problem outlined in the video addresses End3's response, where the Greek usage of Jesus' response to the blasphemy charge was to quote Psalm 82 and suggest that if god called them gods, why do they accuse Jesus of blasphemy for saying he's A son of god? The King James says The son of god. The later translations take it from Jesus claiming to be A son of god to THE son of god, suggesting exclusivity for the claim that wasn't there in Greek. 

 

There's reason to believe that early christianity consisted of a movement of people who were regarding themselves as 'sons of god', led out by the traces of what we find in the gospel stories that have survived. In fact, what Watt's is saying is that the principle mystical realization, which is expressed all over the world through many cultures and "ways," is the very realization that Jesus is describing throughout the gospel tale. 

 

In John 10:30 Jesus declares, "I and my Father are one!" 

 

This sets the stage for the blasphemy charge. He then goes on to quote Psalm 82 (out of it's original context mind you) in order to claim that he didn't blaspheme. He does that by quoting the passage saying in Psalm 82 "you are gods."

 

This is what the mystical realization IS, it's identifying yourself with the absolute, or the god of the mythology. It's unity with the god. This part is largely lost on both believers and non-believers alike because they're generally operating from a narrow perspective of the content in question. One believes it literally and obscured by interpretation that essentially misses the entire point of what's being said, the other doesn't believe it literally through the obscured interpretation of the mystical realization described therein. And so both miss the point being made from the perspective of what this clues us in on about early christianity, about this 'sons of god' theme running through the gospel tale. This is an effort by the writer of John to bring about the mystical realization within a Judaized framework of reference.  

 

In all of this Jesus represents the mystical realization of oneness with the god. Heaven, elsewhere described as not here or there, but within you. Another point that goes right back to where the focus on the mystical realization is at. The disciples are being directed towards the mystical realization over and over again. They represent the unknowing, being brought around to knowing. And it's done through saying that Jesus, the mystical realization that he's clearly representing, is "the way, the truth, and the life. No one goes to the father but through THE MYSTICAL REALIZATION that Jesus is blatantly representing throughout the book the John and elsewhere, over and over again. 

 

I (the mystical realization) is the way, the truth, and the life. No one goes to the Father (god) but through me (mystical realization). 

 

Again, for those who still may not follow, the mystical realization being the realization that the absolute principle, the eternal, the infinite, the omnipresent, the god of the mythology, is identifiable within yourself and your own personal existence. 

 

Why? 

 

Simply because it's the totality of existence itself (the omnipresent), and you exist. Therefore, you and the totality of existence (the omnipresent), though viewed as two different things from a narrow human perspective lacking in depth, are in fact one. 

 

This is one way in which some one can come to the mystical realization. And then tries relating it to others. 

 

This is clearly not a context where one can justify claiming that christianity is the only way to god. The only aspect of christianity which can justifiably be claimed as the only way is the way in which one experiences or understands the mystical realization that the character of Jesus in the mythology is representing time and again, over and over. It's the mystical realization itself embedded in the christian myth which is what is being claimed as the only way to the father, the god. 

 

And that makes sense, because identifying yourself with the god is the only way to the god, through this well known realization that mystics all over the world from many diverse cultures have come to within their respective mythological traditions. 

 

But that's one aspect of christianity that isn't being acknowledged much at all. Or understood in any real way in the churches now. 

 

That's what I mean by blatant misuse of the verses. If a Hindu comes to the mystical realization of being one with the god, then the Hindu IS in tune with what Jesus is saying, "No one goes to the father but through me." Because the "me" is the mystical realization represented in the story by the character of Jesus. It's the "I and my father are one," realization. The "Kingdom of the father is within you," realization. 

 

So I think I've outlined pretty well what Alan Watt's described in the video for those who commented without first watching and making the effort to understand what was described in detail. 

 

Can we now continue with better informed responses and press further? 

 

 

[Guest end3]

 

 

See, both the believer and non-believer response both lack in understanding as of yet. I'm not sure if that's because you guys haven't watched the video in full or don't understand what Watt's described in the video? 

 

 

 

 

Ok, two example of completely missing the point of what was covered in the video. 

 

The King James translation problem addresses End3's response, where the Greek usage of Jesus' response to the blasphemy was to quote Psalm 82 and suggest that if god called them gods, why do they accuse Jesus of blasphemy for saying he's A son of god? The King James says The son of god. There's reason to believe that early christianity consisted of a movement of people who were regarding themselves of sons of god, led out by the traces of what we find in the gospel. In fact, what Watt's is saying is that the principle mystical realization, which is expressed all over the world through many cultures and "ways," is the very realization that Jesus is describing throughout the gospel tale. 

 

In John 10:30 Jesus declares, "I and my Father are one!" 

 

This sets the stage for the blasphemy charge. He then goes on to quote Psalm 82 (out of it's original context mind you) in order to claim that he didn't blaspheme. He does that by quoting the passage saying "you are gods." This is what the mystical realization is, identifying yourself with the absolute, or the god of the mythology. It's unity with the god. This part is largely lost on both believers and non-believers alike because they're generally operating from a narrow perspective of the content in question. One believes it literally, the other doesn't believe it literally. And both miss the point being made from the perspective of what this clues us in on about early christianity. This is an effort by the writer of John to bring about the mystical realization to a Jewish - like context. 

 

In all of this Jesus represents the mystical realization of oneness with the god. Heaven, elsewhere describes as not here or there, but within you. Another point that goes right back to where the focus on the mystical realization is. The disciples are being directed towards the mystical realization over and over again. And it's done through saying that Jesus, the mystical realization, is "the way, the truth, and the life. No one goes to the father but through THE MYSTICAL REALIZATION that Jesus is blatantly representing thoughout the book the John and elsewhere, over and over again. 

 

I (the mystical realization) is the way, the truth, and the life. No one goes to the Father (god) but through me (mystical realization). 

 

Again, for those who still may not follow, the mystical realization being the realization that the absolute principle, the eternal, the infinite, the omnipresent, the god of the mythology, is identifiable within yourself and your own personal existence. 

 

Why? 

 

Simply because it's the totality of existence itself, and you exist. Therefore, you and the totality of existence, though viewed as two different things, are in fact only one great big thing interacting with itself. 

 

This is one way in which some one can come to the mystical realization. 

 

This is clearly not a context where one can justify claiming that christianity is the only way to god. The only aspect of christianity which can justifiably be claimed as the only way is the way in which one experiences or understanding the mystical realization that the character of Jesus in the mythology is representing time and again, over and over. It's the mystical realization itself embedded in the christian myth which is what is being claimed as the only way to the father, the god. 

 

And that makes sense, because identifying yourself with the god is the only way to the god. 

 

But that's one aspect of christianity that isn't being acknowledge at all. Or understood in any real way in the churches now. 

 

That's what I mean by blatant misuse of the verses. If a Hindu comes to the mystical realization of being one with the god, then the Hindu IS in tune with what Jesus is saying, "No one goes to the father but through me." Because the "me" is the mystical realization represented in the story by the character of Jesus. It's the "I and my father are one," realization. 

 

So I think I've outlined pretty well what Alan Watt's described in the video for those who comment without first watching and making the effort to understand what was described in the video. 

 

Can we now continue with better informed responses and press further? 

 

 

Josh, back in the day, I've had this discussion.....mystic interpretation....everyone essentially talking about the same thing.  Yes, I don't agree.  I do see your point, but I don't take it that way, and probably wont. 

[Joshpantera]

 

Josh, back in the day, I've had this discussion.....mystic interpretation....everyone essentially talking about the same thing.  Yes, I don't agree.  I do see your point, but I don't take it that way, and probably wont. 

 

@end3 Thank you for your polite response. 

 

Can I ask why you don't take it that way and probably won't? This is very clear in scripture, and we can also address the philosophical implications that very necessarily arise from this. Granted, I assume that you adhere to modern christian interpretation which I suspect is completely misrepresenting what early christianity may have started out as originally. Are you open minded enough to explore this other possibility? 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

 

The Bible is an absolutist monotheistic religion, of course it claims it is the only way.  For pete's sake, the name of the Church in Acts was, The Way.  John is a particularly difficult text because there are themes, such as Jesus or the Father drawing or allowing certain people to come as mentioned in John 6, 17 and also here in 14.  So let's note the question in its context:

 

“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me. ² My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?³ And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. ⁴ You know the way to the place where I am going.”

⁵ Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

⁶ Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ⁷ If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

 

Jesus is obviously here talking about going to be with the Father, which would be occasioned upon this death and ascension, but it initiates a question from the disciples who are the only ones present.  "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"  A confused response of course, since Jesus is speaking in veiled archaic language but he is talking basically about heaven or paradise in the first section, so his retort in v.6 is all about how they can know the way.  So he specifically responds, "I am the way," and that if you really know me then you know the Father as no one can come to the Father except through Jesus.  

 

I don't really get where you're going with this mystical interpretation, but it seems to ignore the direct context and plain meaning of the text where it does mean to state an absolutist declaration that Jesus is the way the truth and the life, and that the only way to the father is through him.  Otherwise, why would he tell the disciples this when they asked how to get there?  Wouldn't some pluralistic religious answer be, "there are many paths, but Jesus is an okay one too." That doesn't seem to be the NT message, and we shouldn't kid ourselves on this board and think that Christianity can coherently be watered down to some purely mystical religion, the text has a context historically and as it concerns the rest of the text written from which you extract your proof texts.

 

I think my last post gives you some greater scope of depth with where I was going in my shorter posts. 

 

The way to Heaven. Where is the Kingdom of Heaven?

 

Luke 17:21Names of God Bible (NOG)

²¹ They can’t say, ‘Here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ You see, the kingdom of God is within^[a] you.”

 

How do you get to the Kingdom of Heaven that is within you? 

 

"I and the Father are one!"

 

"Isn't it written in your law, 'you are gods?'"

 

"why then accuse me of blasphemy for saying I am a son of God?"

 

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one goes to the Father except through me." 

 

⁷ If you have known me, you will also know my Father. From now on you know him through me and have seen him in me.”

⁸ Philip said to Yeshua, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will satisfy us.”

⁹ Yeshua replied, “I have been with all of you for a long time. Don’t you know me yet, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father. So how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? ¹⁰ Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? What I’m telling you doesn’t come from me. The Father, who lives in me, does what he wants. ¹¹ Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and that the Father is in me. Otherwise, believe me because of the things I do.

 

These initiates are struggling to get it, as people right now are struggling to get it. They represent the general social response from the Jewish people trying to wrap their minds about what is being said about the unity between god and man, what is being said about the mystical realization of oneness between man and god, and this belief being taught that they are 'sons of god,' as it is written in their law. 

 

Don't you know ME (the mystical realization described several times already) yet, Philip?

 

These initiates make up the body of christ and the formula is set up to where Jesus understands that he's the god, and goes on to say that the church is the body of Jesus (the human body, basically), therefore the mystical realization passes from Jesus to his church. It's a step by step association of the people back to the god via this Hero Myth.

 

And the goal seems to be to understand it, understand what's being said. And the examples given in the mythology show lack of understanding on the part of the people. It's a constant call to try and hunker down, try and understand, the Hero myth character is giving a message and trying to have that message understood by the people. And the people struggle to understand it. Over and over again. This is classical Hero's Journey mythology. Which is present in diverse cultures worldwide. All of which hinge around this same exact ONE WAY to the god, which is through self realization and self identification with the absolute. 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

 

 

I think my last post gives you some greater scope of depth with where I was going in my shorter posts. 

 

The way to Heaven. Where is the Kingdom of Heaven?

 

Luke 17:21Names of God Bible (NOG)

²¹ They can’t say, ‘Here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ You see, the kingdom of God is within^[a] you.”

 

How do you get to the Kingdom of Heaven that is within you? 

 

"I and the Father are one!"

 

"Isn't it written in your law, 'you are gods?'"

 

"why then accuse me of blasphemy for saying I am a son of God?"

 

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one goes to the Father except through me." 

 

⁷ If you have known me, you will also know my Father. From now on you know him through me and have seen him in me.”

⁸ Philip said to Yeshua, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will satisfy us.”

⁹ Yeshua replied, “I have been with all of you for a long time. Don’t you know me yet, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father. So how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? ¹⁰ Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? What I’m telling you doesn’t come from me. The Father, who lives in me, does what he wants. ¹¹ Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and that the Father is in me. Otherwise, believe me because of the things I do.

 

These initiates are struggling to get it, as people right now are struggling to get it. They represent the general social response from the Jewish people trying to wrap their minds about what is being said about the unity between god and man, what is being said about the mystical realization of oneness between man and god. Don't you know ME (the mystical realization described several times already) yet, Philip?

 

These initiates make up the body of christ and the formula is set up to where Jesus understands that he's the god, and the church is Jesus, therefore the mystical realization passed from Jesus to his church. And the goal seems to be to understand it, understand what's being said. And the examples given in the mythology show lack of understanding on the part of the people. It's a constant call to try and hunker down, try and understand, the Hero myth character is giving a message and trying to have that message understood by the people. And the people struggle to understand it. Over and over again. This is classical Hero's Journey mythology. Which is present in diverse cultures worldwide.

 

 

 

 

Are you influenced by Jordan Peterson or Carl Jung here?  Yours seems to be an archetypal interpretation much in line with theirs.

[Joshpantera]

I'm influenced through Joseph Campbell, who was influence by Jung and I'm not sure about Peterson off hand. 

 

But more to the point, I'm just explaining what Alan Watts was talking about in the opening video. Campbell was a contemporary of Watts and quoted him in several instances. So I understand the subject matter from varying sources. 

 

I also sound like someone who's experienced the mystical realization myself, probably, and that's because many years ago I had such an experience and it stays with you for life. But mine came from a different direction. Not scriptures per say. It came through deep contemplation about existence itself as what the gods are ultimately referring to. From there my awareness began to drift towards my place within the totality of existence itself, the part and the whole being one, essentially, which is what the supreme gods are referring to ultimately as omnipresent and such. The everywhere present absolute god can only represent one thing, that which is everywhere present. That's the totality, that's the whole, and that's where the god concept leads when followed this deep down the path of inquiry and contemplation. All paths essentially lead to one destination in this way. 

 

And I began to understand that as I sat there in contemplation, I am an aspect of the totality of all of existence itself which is never born and never dies, as a whole. It just goes on and on transforming itself from one form to another, over and over, and from one aspect of consciousness to another in the case of living creatures like myself. And holding that focus became very, very profound. Following that experience I wound up reading on mystical and esoteric subject matter and came into Joseph Campbell, Alan Watts, and other sources. 

 

And that led into understanding it's presence in christianity and finally identifying that aspect that had previously hid below the surface of the words that were right in front of me all along, going as unnoticed for the most part. 

 

In my case, I've had the mystical realization through a completely non-theistic framework. Not believing the gods are literally true. Not taking the Hero of the myth literally. But nevertheless understanding the message coming from the depths of human consciousness when focused in on these mysterious areas of contemplation. That's how the message gets written into mythologies, by people who are trying to give it representation and teach the mystical realization in some way, generally by way of a Hero example figure who serves as a mouth piece for various philosophical and religious schools of thought. John is doing just that with the character of Jesus in his gospel story. 

 

And that's essentially the "Good News." 

 

Most people are completely naive to it. Especially as concerns the majority of christians today. 

 

 

[Guest]

 

I'm influenced through Joseph Campbell, who was influence by Jung and I'm not sure about Peterson off hand. 

 

But more to the point, I'm just explaining what Alan Watts was talking about in the opening video. Campbell was a contemporary of Watts and quoted him in several instances. So I understand the subject matter from varying sources. 

 

I also sound like someone who's experienced the mystical realization myself, probably, and that's because many years ago I had such an experience and it stays with you for life. But mine came from a different direction. Not scriptures per say. It came through deep contemplation about existence itself as what the gods are ultimately referring to. From there my awareness began to drift towards my place within the totality of existence itself, the part and the whole being one, essentially, which is what the supreme gods are referring to ultimately as omnipresent and such. The everywhere present absolute god can only represent one thing, that which is everywhere present. That's the totality, that's the whole, and that's where the god concept leads when followed this deep down the path of inquiry and contemplation. All paths essentially lead to one destination in this way. 

 

And I began to understand that as I sat there in contemplation, I am an aspect of the totality of all of existence itself which is never born and never dies, as a whole. It just goes on and on transforming itself from one form to another, over and over, and from one aspect of consciousness to another in the case of living creatures like myself. And holding that focus became very, very profound. Following that experience I wound up reading on mystical and esoteric subject matter and came into Joseph Campbell, Alan Watts, and other sources. 

 

And that led into understanding it's presence in christianity and finally identifying that aspect that had previously hid below the surface of the words that were right in front of me all along, going as unnoticed for the most part. 

 

In my case, I've had the mystical realization through a completely non-theistic framework. Not believing the gods are literally true. Not taking the Hero of the myth literally. But nevertheless understanding the message coming from the depths of human consciousness when focused in on these mysterious areas of contemplation. That's how the message gets written into mythologies, by people who are trying to give it representation and teach the mystical realization in some way, generally by way of a Hero example figure who serves as a mouth piece for various philosophical and religious schools of thought. John is doing just that with the character of Jesus in his gospel story. 

 

And that's essentially the "Good News." 

 

Most people are completely naive to it. Especially as concerns the majority of christians today. 

 

 

Ah yes, Campbell is among those influenced by Jung, which is why I felt your writing was a bit familiar.  

 

Serious question though, were you under psychedelics when you had this experience?

 

I personally don't see much that is really compelling about these more Hinduistic influences, where reality can esoterically be unified in some way, and that we are apart of something as a whole which is immortal.  Watts I would consider to be a Hindu popularizer in the 70s isn't taken all that seriously outside of his own circle of followers or those that just generally found his teachings to sound "wise."  And what do you mean by one form of consciousness to another, how do you have consciousness without a central nervous system?  It seems to me that human beings and other organisms exist at distinct levels and are made up of but are nonetheless more than than their component parts, which means that we can take a more emergent approach to biology rather than try to assert some kind of unified substance (such as quantum consciousness) to explain how emotions, cognitions and behavior arise from the Central Nervous System.  

 

Regarding the utility of a mythological or mystical interpretation of Scripture, I find this to be troubling as well.  John has a very specific message, "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."  John is asserting not just a kind of generic human hero archetype, but that Jesus was the literal Messiah of the Jewish people and Son of God who rose from the dead and ascended bodily into heaven, it is Thomas who is depicted as touching the physical hands and wound on the side of Jesus in John.  It is also stating here the message that reiterated throughout John, which is that you ought to believe specifically in Jesus as the only way to the Father and that this is the only way to life and immortality.  I highly doubt that the anonymous writer of John had some kind of background mystical truth he was seeking to convey, which doesn't mean that ancient writings are utterly without wisdom, but I think extracting them utterly from their historical context and ignoring exegetical methods in the original language is a way to twist and manufacture generally any interpretation you'd like.  I think it is best to understand the setting, historical background, and occasion for the particular writing as well as the genre of the text to determine how to approach interpreting it.  If any archetypal explanations are offered those would be post-hoc rationalizations which we infer onto the text in my mind, as even though we can note these themes in different religions, this doesn't mean that the writers believed them in any kind of purely metaphorical or representative way, clearly the Biblical authors considered Jesus to be a real person who did things which were really miraculous, such as raising from the dead.

[midniterider]

The bible has a few very buddhist/vedantic scriptures, as Josh has shown us.

 

Scripture says " On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. " Jesus states plainly that there is no duality, no separation ... All are one and the same...unfortunately when people start to consider that they are God or on par with God then they are no longer sheep to be controlled by the church. Christians probably just think it's some kind of symbolism or parable and dismiss it...because that kinda thinking is church breaking, pastor unemploying kinda thinking.

[Guest]

 

The bible has a few very buddhist/vedantic scriptures, as Josh has shown us.

 

Scripture says " On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. " Jesus states plainly that there is no duality, no separation ... All are one and the same...unfortunately when people start to consider that they are God or on par with God then they are no longer sheep to be controlled by the church. Christians probably just think it's some kind of symbolism or parable and dismiss it...because that kinda thinking is church breaking, pastor unemploying kinda thinking.

Trying to read Hinduism into the Bible is IMO a non-productive action, especially since I can do what I did earlier and demonstrate that the 1st Century interpretation likely had nothing to do with some kind of pantheistic union of all substances into one.  Christianity simply doesn't teach that, so making certain texts incoherent to their context by ripping them out to claim all kinds of new religious truths is to me a bit silly.  The texts say what they say and we should recognize their human origin for anthropological reasons, but beyond that there is little wisdom to be gained unless one believes the message.

[midniterider]

 

Trying to read Hinduism into the Bible is IMO a non-productive action, especially since I can do what I did earlier and demonstrate that the 1st Century interpretation likely had nothing to do with some kind of pantheistic union of all substances into one.  Christianity simply doesn't teach that, so making certain texts incoherent to their context by ripping them out to claim all kinds of new religious truths is to me a bit silly.  The texts say what they say and we should recognize their human origin for anthropological reasons, but beyond that there is little wisdom to be gained unless one believes the message.

 

Maybe Jesus was just a regular guy spouting pantheism to some less than average intelligence apostles or homeless/mentally ill/drug users (John). These people didnt understand what Jesus was getting at and after Jesus was gone didn't really have anyone to counter their hero worship interpretation.

 

While I am drawn to pantheism and buddhism and advaita and think Alan Watts is pretty cool, I dont spend a lot of time on it. There's more productive things I need to do like play video games. LoL.

 

edit: I was poking around. The Gospel of Thomas is supposed to have some interesting non-duality passages in it.

 

 

[florduh]

I knew the video was too long for most to bother with.

[Guest]

 

I knew the video was too long for most to bother with.

Okay, I already was aware of Watts usage of Christianity so I made some responses to specific posters in the thread who tried to actually use it as a guide for understanding certain texts.  I have now however, listened to the audio and will respond.

 

So Watts makes the following assertions:

 

1) Dictation is wrong inspiration is right.  Watts asserts that the Bible was not directly dictated to the prophets and apostles but that these individuals were fallible conduits for divine inspiration.

 

The problem with this assertion is that it is a straw man, the predominant view of inspiration for Christians in Verbal Plenary Inspiration.  Which is that god infallibly inspired humans to write in their own words and context to reveal his truth.  A marriage of sorts using a model for divine revelation that is compatible with the historical critical method (that is until its divine nature is undermined by increased historical scholarship).  The Qur'an on the other hand is a perfectly dictated document and so is read differently.

 

With the Bible it is very important to analyze the genre of text, the time and occasion for what is written and the purpose for the writing which is usually stated outright.  Watts must ignore contradictory teachings to his doctrine of the oneness of the self in all things, and state that only texts which report this doctrine are those which are truly inspired.  This becomes a problem when you start to analyze the individual texts and books such as John for alternative explanations.  Watts for instance makes a claim, he says that the synoptic gospels teach the esoteric teachings of Jesus which are the veiled teachings to the masses while John reveals the true teachings in their fullness delivered to the disciples only.

 

How most scholars see this difference is because of historical developments.  First of all, the Synoptic Gospels speak of Jesus being the Messiah of a kingdom which is to be established in their life time.  Most of these are written around the time of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem so there is an urgency about the Kingdom and it essentially being the gospel once it is setup on earth and indeed resides in believers through the presence of the Holy Spirit.  This echoes the genuine Pauline texts which are also of the Proto-Orthodox texts, but something interesting happens in the later Pseudo-Pauline texts such as the Pastoral Epistles and the gospel of John.  Which is that the nature, namely the divine nature of Jesus is emphasized and end times prophecy is explained as something which will happen further in the future than originally understood.  The Epistles of Peter, not actually written by Peter are other examples where he is trying to explain why the second coming hasnt happened, and he responds that it is so that more mercy might be spread and so everyone gets a chance.  

 

These were the developing factors which for most scholars explains the difference between say Mark and John.  You have not only contradictory narratives but new and unique teaching about Jesus being one with the father, and equal to the father, and in the beginning as the Logos (reason) with the Father which has to be interpreted within Second Temple Judaism lenses.  You also have the gospel being transformed from a soon and coming return of the King, to a heavenly reunion upon death known as eternal life that human beings experience if they follow Jesus.  The Messianic aspects remain but are invigorated with more Christology and the Eschatology (end times stuff) is adjusted since its the end of the 1st Century and still no second coming.

 

2) Watt's assertion that our true self is in everything and that through zenbased contemplative traditions we can arrive at this esoteric state of oneness is really a poor philosophical argument.  First of all, human consciousness is an emergent property of the Central Nervous System.  Which is that it arises from the networked interactions of billions of neurons particular in scope and size within the brain of a human being and this is how we understand how the mind actually works.  Which raises the same problem as the dualists for Watt's worldview, which is how does the physical interact with thr immaterial?  The truth of the matter is all esoteric experiences are fueled by chemicals and blood to produce the sometimes tremendously powerful experiences which our brain is capable of.  There is no evidence or demonstrable empirical method for establishing a unified theory of everything.  Biophysical structures can produce novel features and functions with simplicity and quantity to produce complexity.  For example, the neurons of a fly are pretty much the same as ours, except they lack the structures and quantity of neurons which make up those structures.  Genetically there is little difference between the human brain and chimp brain, but when you look at the fractal genes which control cellular division, we find that human beings simply have neurons which split more frequently and for longer, meaning a larger quantity of neurons.  This means that we don't need dualism or some kind of Hindu-Buddhist explanation for universal consciousness, but that the biophysical properties of systems have all the tools necessary to produce the complexity and novelty we find in Homo sapiens, including the complex social behavior involving beliefs which produces an evolutionary and historicized culture, which is another emergent level from what humans do collectively together in societies.  

 

So I don't think Watts has anything to say about the nature of reality or mysticism in religion which has much usefulness to understanding the universe any better than a theologian.  As someone who values evidence as the main factor for prommoting confidence in an assertion, I find his esoteric claims have little evidence beyond the kind of inception like thinking his teaching begins to impose on your contemplative experience.  Especially with psychotropic drugs such as shrooms or LSD which can give you the experience of being interconnected to everything.  You're not, that's just the chemicals messing with the beliefs which reside within the physical network of your neurons.  

 

I think meditation is immensely helpful as a key for understanding your internal somatic and cognitive life, and is used to supplement other therapies and has all sorts of practical benefits.  I meditate daily, but trying to intuit the universe by merely observing the vibrations of your conscious experience is a poor way to get there.  It requires science to do its work, which takes time and is often not intuitive.  Such as emergent complex systems arising from simple structures and rules played out at various scales to produce increased complexity with increased quantity.  Or the best example, the human brain.

[Joshpantera]

 

Ah yes, Campbell is among those influenced by Jung, which is why I felt your writing was a bit familiar.  

 

Serious question though, were you under psychedelics when you had this experience?

 

I personally don't see much that is really compelling about these more Hinduistic influences, where reality can esoterically be unified in some way, and that we are apart of something as a whole which is immortal.  Watts I would consider to be a Hindu popularizer in the 70s isn't taken all that seriously outside of his own circle of followers or those that just generally found his teachings to sound "wise."  And what do you mean by one form of consciousness to another, how do you have consciousness without a central nervous system?  It seems to me that human beings and other organisms exist at distinct levels and are made up of but are nonetheless more than than their component parts, which means that we can take a more emergent approach to biology rather than try to assert some kind of unified substance (such as quantum consciousness) to explain how emotions, cognitions and behavior arise from the Central Nervous System.  

 

Regarding the utility of a mythological or mystical interpretation of Scripture, I find this to be troubling as well.  John has a very specific message, "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."  John is asserting not just a kind of generic human hero archetype, but that Jesus was the literal Messiah of the Jewish people and Son of God who rose from the dead and ascended bodily into heaven, it is Thomas who is depicted as touching the physical hands and wound on the side of Jesus in John.  It is also stating here the message that reiterated throughout John, which is that you ought to believe specifically in Jesus as the only way to the Father and that this is the only way to life and immortality.  I highly doubt that the anonymous writer of John had some kind of background mystical truth he was seeking to convey, which doesn't mean that ancient writings are utterly without wisdom, but I think extracting them utterly from their historical context and ignoring exegetical methods in the original language is a way to twist and manufacture generally any interpretation you'd like.  I think it is best to understand the setting, historical background, and occasion for the particular writing as well as the genre of the text to determine how to approach interpreting it.  If any archetypal explanations are offered those would be post-hoc rationalizations which we infer onto the text in my mind, as even though we can note these themes in different religions, this doesn't mean that the writers believed them in any kind of purely metaphorical or representative way, clearly the Biblical authors considered Jesus to be a real person who did things which were really miraculous, such as raising from the dead.

 

No, this wasn't a psychedelic thing. It was a contemplative reaction to thinking about things like what came before the BB and so on. Thinking about what it means to exist, with respect to existence itself the totality. The two, are not two, they are simply one. There is only the totality of existence itself and that's what you and I essentially are. We are the fabric and structure of existence itself, which is the way Watts described it in his Out of Mind series. 

 

What Watt's was saying in the video was that he suspects that Jesus was an ordinary man who had the principle mystical realization (the god and man are essentially one) early in life. All that you see thereafter in the NT and gospels essentially stemming from distorted perspectives of that. And perhaps that in John the esoteric teachings of Jesus come out. I however don't go that far, so far as to assume that the myth of Jesus was ever based on one fixed historical personage and his specific teachings. He's obviously a mix of different historical types along with mythological motifs and so on. There's quite a bit going on with respect to the Jesus myth. But clearly the book John is the most mystical of the gospels and some have averred that it was written specifically to make usage of Gnostic terms and images and bring Gnostic's over to the orthodoxy in that way. It's quite Egyptian in appeal, too. The Lazarus myth loosely modeling the Osiris myth. 

 

I've been torn about how the anonymous gospel writers took these myths themselves. It seems that they took it completely historically as you suggest, but I just don't know. It doesn't really matter though with respect to the mystical content. They could very well take it completely literally and at the same time express the principle mystical realization of oneness with the god. In fact, Watt's whole angle is that they did take Jesus historically and were speaking to the mystical realizations of an historical Jesus. Campbell assumed the same, in terms of Jesus being a real person who expressed having the mystical realization to real disciples. So I'm not even making this about the debate of Jesus' historical existence, I'm just asking christians what they think about the mystical realization that is blatantly being expressed by Jesus in the gospels. And why it's so blatant. And how it compares with other peoples exact same mystical realizations about their gods. All of these mystical "ways" being the very same in terms of all leading to the very same conclusion in the end, oneness with the god. 

 

 

[Guest]

 

 

No, this wasn't a psychedelic thing. It was a contemplative reaction to thinking about things like what came before the BB and so on. 

 

What Watt's was saying in the video was that he suspects that Jesus was an ordinary man who had the principle mystical realization early in life. All that you see thereafter in the NT and gospels essentially stemming from distorted perspectives of that. I however don't that far, so far as to assume that the myth of Jesus was ever based on fixed historical personage. He's obviously a mix of different historical types along with mythological motifs and so on. There's quite a bit going on with respect to the Jesus myth. But clearly the book John is the most mystical of the gospels and some have averred that it was written specifically to make usage of Gnostic terms and images and bring Gnostics over to the orthodoxy. It's quite Egyptian in appeal, too. 

 

I've been torn about how the anonymous gospel writers took these myths themselves. It seems that they took it completely historically as you suggest, but I just don't know. It doesn't really matter though with respect to the mystical content. They could very well take it completely literally and at the same time express the principle mystical realization of oneness with the god. In fact, Watt's whole angle is that they did take Jesus historically and were speaking to the mystical realizations of an historical Jesus. Campbell assumed the same, in terms of Jesus being a real person who expressed having the mystical realization. So I'm not even making this about the debate of Jesus' historical existence, I'm just asking christians what they think about the mystical realization that is blatantly being expressed by Jesus in the gospels. And why it's so blatant. And how it compares with other peoples exact same mystical realizations about their gods. 

 

 

How does the physical human brain interact with the mystical?  Is this achieved purely by the infrastructure of the brain and therefore we have no reason to think it transcendent?  Or if there is some sort of transcendent element where has that been in all of our experiments on religiosity which demonstrate particular regions firing and receiving blood (what an FRI shdoes) when people report these experiences.  No doubt humans have mystical minds, but is that because of evolution or wiring which is generated by certain cultural practices or is it because human beings really are being tapped into something greater than themselves.

 

I have to say, the evidence doesn't look good for those who assert the transcendent, hence I ended up with naturalism given all my research on this topic.

[Joshpantera]

 

How does the physical human brain interact with the mystical?  Is this achieved purely by the infrastructure of the brain and therefore we have no reason to think it transcendent?  Or if there is some sort of transcendent element where has that been in all of our experiments on religiosity which demonstrate particular regions firing and receiving blood (what an FRI shdoes) when people report these experiences.  No doubt humans have mystical minds, but is that because of evolution or wiring which is generated by certain cultural practices or is it because human beings really are being tapped into something greater than themselves.

 

I have to say, the evidence doesn't look good for those who assert the transcendent, hence I ended up with naturalism given all my research on this topic.

 

@TrueScotsman

 

I should say that most of my thoughts and ideas are not exactly traditional most of the time. I will use words like mystical, spiritual, etc., but usually qualify what I mean by them. In this case I suppose I've not been clear enough and you're thinking that I'm taking positions that I'm not actually taking. So I'll try and clarify myself better, I understand it's my own fault if I'm not being clear enough for someone. 

 

I'm a naturalist, completely. Like you. And like you, I see human consciousness as specific to the central nervous system. In fact my opinions as of lately are closer to Peter Russell more so than older philosophers like Watts when it comes to consciousness and awareness. Clearly the evolution of a central nervous system brings consciousness and awareness into greater focus, which, is why human beings are what they are with respect to other creatures. 

 

But what does this have to do with oneness? 

 

With greater focus, comes the realization that although everything appears to be separate and discrete, it's actually interconnected in many ways. It's the animalistic perception of lesser focus that suggests that we're isolated and discrete. Those are appearances. For instance, using the human mind and it's sophisticated central nervous system, I can easily narrow everything down and understand that there's more volume of space itself per every atom of my body with it's brain and nervous system, than there is particular matter. This is fact. All of this space all throughout. 

 

Is space one thing, or is space two or more completely different things? 

 

So in a very specific way, I am space. I am quite literally one continuous thing which is present both within and outside of everything. And as for the particles of matter in space, the jury is out for the most part. The mysteries run deep concerning what the hell is really going on with particles of matter. But in any case, space itself is one continuous thing which is present in fundamental ways both within and outside of all perceived objects. Space, along with matter, IS the universe. If multiverse cosmology is correct, space is very continuous and not limited in scope and depth. Eternal, infinite, omnipresent, etc.

 

I can say, "I am the universe incarnate!" And you'd be hard pressed to show otherwise, regardless of how mystical or new age it sounds to say such a thing. So in a very fundamental way my mind can understand through straight forward materialistic scientific reasoning, that I and the ultimate factors of existence, are truly "one." It always comes down to this principle realization, which, is but a modern perspective of what the old mystical realization entails. Stripped of supernaturalism, it's still there. It's still the basic issue of the human mind coming to a type of deeper self realization and self identification with the whole, despite the perception of isolated and discrete parts. Interconnection and interdependence are true in different senses, despite their association with some peoples supernatural ideas which aren't necessarily true. 

 

The mystical realization of oneness with the god, in my opinion, bubbles up in diverse cultures around the world simply because the gods are in actuality mythical personifications of ultimate reality that deal with the human mind grasping at the mysteries of existence. The ultimate realization is this:

 

"I and the other, are one!"

 

This bubbled up in christianity, too, as it's done in diverse cultures at diverse times in history. 

 

And the person describing this mystical realization in the mythical story line associates (1) himself with the god, and (2) his followers with himself, therefore (3) making a direct connection between the god and the people themselves, the society in question. 

 

The Jewish religious authorities, however, lash out at this. Which is often the case with the mystical realization. Al Hallaj the Islamic mystic declared, "I am my beloved!" and gets killed for saying it. Jesus gets killed for saying it. The moral here is that the religious authorities who like to stand between the people of the society and the god as middle men between the god and the people, and like to promote themselves as a necessary factor in the equation, are in fact completely unnecessary in the grand scheme. The connection is a direction connection and the only way that the religious authorities can promote themselves as a necessary middle man, is by keeping the people ignorant of their direct connection to the god independent of the said religious authorities. The kingdom of the god is "within you," says Luke before John. John follows up on this in greater detail. 

 

This is the root of the psychology behind the modern churches misusing, "no one goes to the father but through me," to claim that they, as a church, are what is meant by "me" in those verses. They do that by claiming that they are the remaining church of Jesus and therefore fit the description of "me" in those verses from the mystical and anonymously authored book of John. 

 

This is what I meant previously when asking if any one sees where this is all going. 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

 

 

@TrueScotsman

 

I should say that most of my thoughts and ideas are not exactly traditional most of the time. I will use words like mystical, spiritual, etc., but usually qualify what I mean by them. In this case I suppose I've not been clear enough and you're thinking that I'm taking positions that I'm not actually taking. So I'll try and clarify myself better, I understand it's my own fault if I'm not being clear enough for someone. 

 

I'm a naturalist, completely. Like you. And like you, I see human consciousness as specific to the central nervous system. In fact my opinions as of lately are closer to Peter Russell more so than older philosophers like Watts when it comes to consciousness and awareness. Clearly the evolution of a central nervous system brings consciousness and awareness into greater focus, which, is why human beings are what they are with respect to other creatures. 

 

But what does this have to do with oneness? 

 

With greater focus, comes the realization that although everything appears to be separate and discrete, it's actually interconnected in many ways. It's the animalistic perception of lesser focus that suggests that we're isolated and discrete. Those are appearances. For instance, using the human mind and it's sophisticated central nervous system, I can easily narrow everything down and understand that there's more volume of space itself per every atom of my body with it's brain and nervous system, than there is particular matter. This is fact. All of this space all throughout. 

 

Is space one thing, or is space two things? 

 

So in a very specific way, I am space. One thing which is present within everything. And as for the particles of matter in space, the jury is out for the most part. The mysteries run deep. But in any case, space itself is one continuous thing which is present in fundamental ways within everything. Space, along with matter, IS the universe. If multiverse cosmology is correct, space is very continuous and not limited in scope and depth. I can say, "I am the universe incarnate!" And you'd be hard pressed to show otherwise. So in a very fundamental way my mind can understand through straight forward materialistic scientific reasoning, that I and the ultimate factors of existence, are truly "one." It always comes down to this principle realization, which, is but a modern perspective of what the old mystical realization entails. Stripped of supernaturalism, it's still there. It's still the basic issue of the human mind coming to a type of deeper self realization and self identification with the whole, despite the perception of parts. 

 

The mystical realization of oneness with the god, in my opinion, bubbles up in diverse cultures around the world simply because the gods are personifications of ultimate reality or the human mind grasping at the mysteries of existence. This isn't limited to religion. It can arise from straight forward scientific contemplation. And it need not have to do with thinking that the supernatural imagery of myths are literally true. Basically, it's an issue that goes deeper than what you seem to understand judging by the way in which you keep trying to engage it. 

 

 

Well I think we have to speak a little more specifically about ontology (the nature of things) than just naturalism, as I do think you and I have considerable differences that this commonality doesn't suggest.  I am familiar with Peter Russell, so I suppose it would be helpful for you to convey what might be different from you and him, as I will generally assume you adopt Panpsychism or a weak form of Pantheism if you accept his teachings.  I would state the position this way, you're welcome to correct me if you think my characterization is inaccurate.  Russell is ultimately interested in the hard problem of consciousness, which is how does the central nervous system produce the experience of our moment to moment conscious state.  Which is that he adopts a Kantian style idealist view that is wedded to Hinduistic conceptions of oneness.  That upon examining the smallest scale of reality as we know, which is Quantum Fields and perturbations of energy and matter which we can scarce declare things.  That timespace which we observe and the matter we see, is the construct of the mind and this union of all matter and space is that which we are apart of, a unified divine nature.  

 

I have my reservations against this view, and I disagree with it for two major reasons.

 

Reason #1 | Emergence and Consciousness

 

I don't accept the hard problem of consciousness as handed down by modern philosophy by Descartes in the Enlightenment, western society has inherited a dualistic conception of the mind from its Hellenistic-Judeo-Christian background wherein a union of Plantonic Idealism and Pauline Dualism became an inherent part of our tradition.  We think of ourselves as a "self," and the modern enlightenment began with the works of Descartes, Hegel and Kant who conceived of a modern interpretation of this view of mankind being something that is unified in nature to the transcendent.  The work of Chalmers and Russell update these arguments in modern philosophy by making the issue about consciousness, which is an old concept with updated meaning reflecting what we know from science as well.  Their work is ultimately about trying to figure out what the nature of reality by solving the problem of the mind, and they end up doing this by expanding consciousness to a near limitless scale, where consciousness underlies everything to some degree.  This I believe is a backwards approach, the universe exists as it does today without any interaction from agents apart from ourselves on this planet.  Life seems to be a novel thing in the universe, as in it had an origin in time and that before this there was simply the particles of physical structures.  The stars which became the material factories for the planetary structures which later came.  Regarding simply inorganic molecules, is that when you give them enough time and density within whatever substance they reside, you don't even need a catalyst for you to start seeing all kinds of complex amino acids forming as NASA recently demonstrated in the past several years with the building blocks of life being able to come together even within a space-like condition, an expansion on Miller-Urey's origin of life experiment with the primordial soup and lightening.  How this happens is actually due to simple repulsion and attraction rules which molecules obey, due to their electrical charges that allow them to combine to make organic compounds.  This is very much so likely how life arose, perhaps in a hydrothermal vent at the sea floor, with the synthesis of heat and chemicals producing the first proto-RNA self-replication molecules and eventually metabolism.  Biology even though it is reliant on the physical atoms which populate the molecules, is ultimately an emergent feature of the material world in that unique structures of matter are now organized a higher levels which produce by that complexity, new and novel properties.  

 

So how does emergence solve the hard problem of consciousness?  Well, it doesn't solve all the answers just yet, as this explanation does point to the source of this answer within the Central Nervous System, but it provides what I think is the best framework for understanding how the brain works generally, and how this points to a solution for consciousness.  Let's examine the case of the Chimpanzee, whose genome we have matched and compared to that of a human being to 98% accuracy, and when examined with particular interest to comparing our brains something startling is revealed.  There is very little difference genetically from a human brain and a Chimp brain, even more startling is that the neurons of an insect are no less remarkable than our own relatively speaking.  However, where we do have some significant genetic differences from Chimps is that we deviate on the matter of cellular division, as in human beings go through additional divisions and thus produce more neurons.  Which we have over hominid evolution developed into a more structured neocortex, particularly with concern to the prefrontal cortex.  These highly connected regions are unique in the universe in that they represent the most complexly organized structure in the known universe.  We also find in other emergent systems that when you have simple general components for organization, across a system you can create new functions and properties by increasing the quantity of connections.  This means that we have to take a systems approach to the brain, and understand our internal experience of consciousness as evolutionarily shaped to be representative of the world we live in, but in a fragmented and imperfect way.  Such as our sensory inputs are shaped by our evolutionary heritage, such as 1,000 less olfactory genes than that of a Chimp, and therefore our conscious experience of the world is shaped in part by genetic parameters which shape our sensory inputs, but they don't determine the final shape and structure of our adult brains.

 

This brings me to my second point.

 

Reason #2 | Neuroplasticity and Evolutionary Epistemology

 

The brain as a system of structures, such as neurons which communications in a decentralized fashion nonetheless produces an experience of a being existing in time, as Sam Harris said, "it is always now when it comes to the matter of neuroscience."  To me this isn't to demonstrate that human beings shape time with their thinking, as it has been shown that only velocity and gravity can warp this spacetime which we inhabit, but rather this perception is based upon neuro-chemical interactions which are meant to be reflective of the universe in which we live.  For instance, let's rewind back to our time on the Savannah, would it be beneficial to our survival to produce sensory inputs which would be wholly inaccurate of the world?  No in fact, our consciousness erred on the side of scaring us shitless, by having an overactive amygdala which assumed the presence of an agent in the bush that just moved near by, and to use our innate reptilian attention to be activated by such mammalian structures.  We likewise are more prone to see angry faces in a crowd, our perceptions are created in our minds much like Kant stated, but his problem was then to assert a consciousness-centric-idealism rather than to understand how evolution shaped our sensory capacities, which is a view now called Evolutionary Epistemology.  

 

Neuroplasticity is the other element to this which is that changes to the structure of the brain seem to produce functional differences in human beings.  To recall an example, there was a 40 year old school teacher who had no history of aberrant behavior to speak of.  However, he became increasingly unable to control many of his conscious urges and desires, getting deeply invested in child pornography, and even to the point where he couldn't help but ask every woman who passed him to sleep with him.  After being convicted on charges related to prostitution and child pornography, this teacher found himself having a head ache as he awaited to be sent off to prison.  Once he collapsed, he was finally then taken to a hospital where a giant tumor had been growing where his orbito prefrontal cortex resides, a region obviously responsible for regulating the behavior he clearly demonstrated.  This was removed and his behavior returned to normal, and this would happen two more times where the tumor had to be removed and the behavior returned with each occurrence.  This to me doesn't point to a consciousness which is ultimately at one with the universe, but one that is distinct to your body and reliant on the structure of your brain to produce the cognitions, emotions and behavior which make up our human experience.  These pathways can be damaged, or they can be shaped in ways which can be harmful for future behavior, such as the development of a disorder of some sort.  These can also be improved as contemplative practices and even religious practices have demonstrated to do, which explains some of the more esoteric experiences human beings attain after repeated practice of contemplation.  Which is to say that the truly remarkable thing about human beings isn't this awe inspiring esoteric experience we can attain in our own heads, but that through deliberate practice human beings can attain experiences like that and MORE, because of the reality of neuroplasticity.  Which explains why human beings changed so greatly with the cognitive revolution, as the invention of cultural cognitive artifacts necessitated changes in neural structures and patterns.  

 

This is a non-reductive approach to Naturalism which does employ both some reductive explanations but also utilizes chaos theory, emergence and complexity sciences to demonstrate these interactions across various scales of reality, without asserting the supremacy of one, be it the physical or mental.  An ontologically pluralistic universe which doesn't need unification, nor can it, as explanations of local ontology versus global ontology seem to be the only ones we are truly able to answer at this stage of philosophy, where realism has been reformed down to the pragmatic after the fall of dualism and positivism.  This could be compatible perhaps with a Panentheism, but a Pantheism or one that over plays its hand with the quantum realm is one that again falls into that same problem which we spoke about with Descartes, in that it gives ontological supremacy to consciousness when I don't think the evidence is quite warranted for that.