Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

An Immaterial Being ? What 's Up With That.


oddbird1963

Recommended Posts

Oh Legion, I knew I always liked you. :D

I confess a great fondness for you too NotBlinded. :grin:

 

I would agree with this. It is very difficult to express what I think, and not very popular, but "organization" is the principle of life.

I am in agreement with the good doctor and I am at peace. :thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Shyone

    16

  • Legion

    14

  • Antlerman

    12

  • NotBlinded

    12

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

If there is an independent "me" why does it need a physical brain to temporarily create itself? If I exist whether there is a physical body or not, why does my physical body have to make the electrical and chemical connections for me to exist right now? Why am I unaware of any existence other than in this body?

I'm just following this right now and will add some thoughts later as I can best form them. (Thanks NotBlinded for jumping in here... :) ). But I want to say one thing to this for now.

 

Are the electrical connections the cause, or the effect, or simply a manifestation? Is your sense of you, the patterns of thought in your brain that you hang together symbolically to represent you, what 'makes' you? Or is it simply how you process that and interpret that? That what you consider you, is a construct of form? That you, the one looking through the organs of the eyes into that mirror, processing and interpreting what it sees is the you you put in front of "you"? That you are not that image, that you are the Interpreter of that image of you?

 

Why are you unaware of any existence other than in this body? Why am I aware of it? Why am I not yet aware of many things my experience has not yet opened to me? Because my understanding isn't there yet? Why is it that the mythic Christian can't see things you do? Why is it it makes no sense to them? I changed my signature to a quote from Emerson that says this for me, "What we are, that only can we see."

 

It's not a put down to anyone, but simply a way to understand that we grow and our perspectives change, and until we are at that place, it all seems and sound 'magical' or 'fantastical' or 'woo woo', spooky mystery stuff. It's not that at all (with the exception of course in regressive plummets into the pre-rational levels of mythic, magical, or archaic thinking - such as UFO's and Bigfoot, as per your example).

 

I am a highly rational person, and I cannot deny the soundness of a deeper existence than the material alone. I cannot deny it rationally, and certainly not existentially. At all levels it exists, but our awareness at a conscious state through the level of 'mind' is able to integrate itself into this "Ground of Being". The illness, or the death of mind is not the negation of Self, but simply the falling back of evolution of the the material world to its Source. It falls back down the path it emerged up from. This is not leaping outside rationality, rather an integration of evolved mind into the greater reality of Existence.

 

 

I'll see if there isn't a better way to talk about this... the mind is processing what the spirit sees... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
It's not a put down to anyone, but simply a way to understand that we grow and our perspectives change, and until we are at that place, it all seems and sound 'magical' or 'fantastical' or 'woo woo', spooky mystery stuff.

And how is that not a put down? You're saying in effect that those who disagree with your position haven't "grown" enough to understand.

 

I submit it is possible to be fully grown, understand, and still disagree!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fat head :HaHa:

 

Still love you though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'll see if there isn't a better way to talk about this... the mind is processing what the spirit sees... :)

I think I understand, but you are talking metaphysical deep, and the last time I thought that deeply I was stoned. "Is what I see really there, or is it a construct of my mind and I see the mental representation, and is it influenced by my thoughts, or an actual representation of reality..."

 

Same with "ego", and "I" and awareness.

 

My approach is just from a very different direction. I think of the exceptions, and they are what make the rule for me. For example, I see the people with no ego, no "I", no awareness, no thoughts or will, no memories, and I note what they have and don't have.

 

On the smaller side, an ant has a sense of self. Poke it, and it reacts, protects, attacks or takes whatever measures it deems appropriate and feasible. Remarkable how flexible they are in their responses.

 

I might sometimes wonder why living things try to survive and why they do what they do, but I also understand that it is only practical to try to live if one is to survive and pass down the urge to do to. Those animals and plants that don't have this "need" to survive quickly become inert material and recycled so that the animals and plants that want to survive can go on and do so. That is what defines success, and why living things "want" to survive.

 

Even that's a little deep for me at the moment (after lunch). I need a nap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a put down to anyone, but simply a way to understand that we grow and our perspectives change, and until we are at that place, it all seems and sound 'magical' or 'fantastical' or 'woo woo', spooky mystery stuff.

And how is that not a put down? You're saying in effect that those who disagree with your position haven't "grown" enough to understand.

 

I submit it is possible to be fully grown, understand, and still disagree!

I was worried that no matter how I put it, it would be taken as a put down. I'm sorry you take it that way. I don't look at things like this anymore as something judgment of value. We are where we are, and that is always changing with new perspective. I for one got past calling myself things like "stupid" for thinking differently when I was earlier on my personal road. It's simply a fact that unless someone has a proper context to understanding certain things, they won't. You can't possibly understand what it is to understand the world through the eyes of a Turk, without being immersed in it - being a Turk? The best you can hope for is an outside understanding of if. It has nothing to do with intelligence. It has everything to do with context and perception. I personally do consider it growth to have perspective added. It broadens me. Sorry you take that as a put down. It's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'll see if there isn't a better way to talk about this... the mind is processing what the spirit sees... :)

I think I understand, but you are talking metaphysical deep, and the last time I thought that deeply I was stoned.

 

:HaHa:

 

I must be in a constant state of stoned. Just a burnout from the 70's. :)

 

"Is what I see really there, or is it a construct of my mind and I see the mental representation, and is it influenced by my thoughts, or an actual representation of reality..."

 

Same with "ego", and "I" and awareness.

The difference is though is that it's not a philosophical line of inquiry. It's a state of experience. That makes it much different than a conceptual framework. It's a state of Being. It's experience that is then interpreted. And hence why the argument that it can't be hooked to a machine to measure it and have it communicate the content of it. It can't be talked about adequately, except the closest is to attempt to express it - poetry, music, acts of compassion, humanity. It's also not some "high", some state of emotional ecstasy, but Immediacy and Permanence.

 

I might sometimes wonder why living things try to survive and why they do what they do, but I also understand that it is only practical to try to live if one is to survive and pass down the urge to do to. Those animals and plants that don't have this "need" to survive quickly become inert material and recycled so that the animals and plants that want to survive can go on and do so. That is what defines success, and why living things "want" to survive.

But the drive of living things, the upward movement towards organization and complexity is not unique to biological organisms. Rather Evolution is pervasive in all of the universe. Biological life in its evolution is a continuation of that. So if Will exists in the animal, from whence does that come? Material to biology to mind, it's all moving higher and deeper. It's the nature of the universe. At that nature is Creation. Not "The Creation", but Creativity. Life.

 

Even that's a little deep for me at the moment (after lunch). I need a nap.

Deep is good. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the drive of living things, the upward movement towards organization and complexity is not unique to biological organisms. Rather Evolution is pervasive in all of the universe. Biological life in its evolution is a continuation of that. So if Will exists in the animal, from whence does that come? Material to biology to mind, it's all moving higher and deeper. It's the nature of the universe. At that nature is Creation. Not "The Creation", but Creativity. Life.

Yes, "God" is persuasive, not coercive. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
I was worried that no matter how I put it, it would be taken as a put down.

Of course I know you're not a person who deliberately insults or demeans others. But let's try to examine your statement from an "outsider's" perspective.

 

Regarding the notion that it takes a Turk to know a Turk I'll just say this. We all have individual components we amassed through genetics and experience. We are individuals, but there is much common overlap. It doesn't seem reasonable to dismiss the conclusion of someone who disagrees simply because, basically, he isn't you and can't possibly have a valid perspective.

 

Few have delved deeper into spirituality and mysticism than I have. I spent years studying, experimenting, performing rituals, seeking understanding from the "spiritual masters" and meditating. I was as spiritual as you or anyone else claiming to have a soul in tune with the universal truth. It's not a bad outlook to have, but nothing concrete ever came of it. I pretty much had no reason to believe in the stuff other than it felt good. I looked for any scrap of evidence that might assure me I wasn't deceiving myself. Just as with Christianity, I gave it my all, studied, prayed and hoped - but eventually I had to conclude it was bunk. Popular bunk, attractive bunk, but bunk nonetheless. I could come to no other conclusion after diligent seeking of evidence and finding none.

 

Many people who deem themselves to be highly evolved spiritual beings will always see us crass materialists as poor souls at a lower stage of development. It's not our fault, but as we grow we shall eventually come to the great understanding possessed by more evolved entities. One may wrap that message in a backdrop of religion, reincarnation, ascended masters, misapplication of quantum physics, visions, or the mysteries of the universe. It's still holier than thou elitist bullshit.

 

As a Christian I was told that as I grew in the Lord my understanding and faith would increase. When the promises of God never panned out in real life, it was only appearing that way to me because I needed to grow spiritually. I just won't take that kind of reasoning as an answer anymore.

 

Of course, I intend no offense either, but I'm offering the reason so many folks are irritated by the "spiritual community."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I know you're not a person who deliberately insults or demeans others. But let's try to examine your statement from an "outsider's" perspective.

 

Regarding the notion that it takes a Turk to know a Turk I'll just say this. We all have individual components we amassed through genetics and experience. We are individuals, but there is much common overlap. It doesn't seem reasonable to dismiss the conclusion of someone who disagrees simply because, basically, he isn't you and can't possibly have a valid perspective.

A couple of points. First I don't intend to dismiss any perspective. I think it is a valid perspective, from that point of view. From another point of view, it is an incomplete perspective. It is in fact the notion of right and wrong is to me a limited perspective.

 

It begs me to ask in your context, do you think it is valid for the Christian to call your perspective "bullshit'? It would seem you would need to allow for them into your space, as much as you expect to heard from yours into theirs.

 

As far as the Turks go, you analogy eludes me. Genetics and experience outside that social context in fact does not grant you the experience of being a Turk. At best, you can try to relate to them with varying degrees of success by pulling from things which seem similar in your experiences. Your perspective of them is valid, but only from that as an outsider with what you have to inform you of their culture. Your perspective is valid as an observer, but not as a participant. No one knows better what it is to be a Turk than a Turk.

 

Few have delved deeper into spirituality and mysticism than I have. I spent years studying, experimenting, performing rituals, seeking understanding from the "spiritual masters" and meditating. I was as spiritual as you or anyone else claiming to have a soul in tune with the universal truth.

I don't know what your experiences were so I can't make comparisons of myself to you. Why are you with me?

 

For whatever reasons for you, with what you were exposed to, with who you are, for what works for you, none of that did. At the best you can say is it was not valid for you. But you cannot make the shoe that fits you fit everyone else in the world. To me, the end result is what derives the greatest benefit - to use the term because I want to, spiritually. How completed, connected, fulfilled, expanded as an individual, not just in themselves but in connection with others, does the road you have found give you?

 

This is where it comes to for me. It's not one single place, one single truth, one single perspective, but a living, dynamic, growth into being, becoming. At one point the mythic system worked. It was truth for me. At another the rational/scientific gave me what I needed. I became more whole. Yet for me, at the heart of all was the spirit that gave pull to each paths. Where I am at now is to build the spirit that exists with my rational mind, marrying them and building on that self that has always been there in me.

 

This is not a comparison or competition of me and you, any more than it is of me and my past. I was where I was where I needed to be, for my becoming. There is nothing invalid in any of this. The only invalidity is when it is I who denies for me what I am asked to be by me. That is how I define the sincere life. The judge of that is our own heart. Not others. I am not your judge.

 

It's not a bad outlook to have, but nothing concrete ever came of it. I pretty much had no reason to believe in the stuff other than it felt good.

I have profound reasons to believe it.

 

I looked for any scrap of evidence that might assure me I wasn't deceiving myself.

I have that evidence, for me.

 

Many people who deem themselves to be highly evolved spiritual beings will always see us crass materialists as poor souls at a lower stage of development.

First, I don't try to allow room for arrogance in my thinking, as the moment I go there my focus has fallen to the ego. It's a way to check the temperature of my spirit, so to speak.

 

But honestly, do you see the Christians you know as "poor souls at a lower stage of development". Ever call them idiots? Morons? Etc. ;)

 

As a Christian I was told that as I grew in the Lord my understanding and faith would increase. When the promises of God never panned out in real life, it was only appearing that way to me because I needed to grow spiritually. I just won't take that kind of reasoning as an answer anymore.

Actually, I would suggest you, like me, left Christianity precisely because you needed to grow, that you were being hindered in that growth. It's what I argue all the time. Why else leave? I was in it, when I needed to be for various reasons to meet where I was at at that time. But I ultimately HAD to leave it because I was on a road of growth. I can't but believe everyone who does is doing so for their own similar reasons. It no longer fit.

 

I have the greatest of respect and embrace of reason and science, but for me it alone doesn't take us where we need to go. It doesn't take me there. In no way do I reject it, but I refuse to let it define possibilities for my spirit, just as religion defined the limits to stay within their worldview. The limits I believe are the infinite, and that infinite is in me - as my experience has left its mark in me. I don't claim possession of it, but participation of it as all have, from my point of view.

 

Of course, I intend no offense either, but I'm offering the reason so many folks are irritated by the "spiritual community."

I understand the offense. It happens at every level, whether to the magic follower, the mythic follower, the rational follower, the transrational follower, etc. There is a pattern of pathology at each stage, and none of it is good. I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How completed, connected, fulfilled, expanded as an individual, not just in themselves but in connection with others, does the road you have found give you?

 

Hi AM,

 

I'm trying to "get" where you are coming from. I know you are a musician and composer...

 

I feel the way you describe in the quote above, when I improvise and compose/arrange at a certain level, yet I find it difficult to put into words. It's almost like an out-of-body experience when I create at that "level". I don't know if this is what you are talking about, but for me there is no greater experience or fulfillment than this except when I am immersed in nature. Also, in a rare moment when I connect with another person or animal through common understanding or emotionally, I get that feeling of two lives becoming at one.

 

 

I am also wondering if what you describe as "the ground of our being" is some type of Monism, or how Paul Tillich uses the phrase.

 

To me, what makes life "alive" is mysterious and wonderful. Beyond that, I'm ignorant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
do you think it is valid for the Christian to call your perspective "bullshit'?

Since they are convinced they have a corner on Truth, they could do nothing else. Having been Christian spiritual, Pagan spiritual, Eastern spiritual and generic spiritual myself I can relate to that thinking.

 

How completed, connected, fulfilled, expanded as an individual, not just in themselves but in connection with others, does the road you have found give you?

There is no road. I take things as they come. I no longer consciously choose a belief but believe that which is evident to me. It's a liberating honesty for me.

 

I don't know what your experiences were so I can't make comparisons of myself to you. Why are you with me?

I related some of my spiritual background so you would know, and I extrapolated your journey from many of your previous and current posts. Though we are not both Turks I feel it's safe to assume we have both taken seriously the subjects of religion and spirituality and how they are expressed in diverse people and cultures. We have both sought truth and we have both sought evidence for the supernatural. I further surmised that while I found nothing to corroborate the existence of a non-corporeal realm, you found evidence in some personal experience or thought process.

 

Actually, I would suggest you, like me, left Christianity precisely because you needed to grow, that you were being hindered in that growth.

That scenario is no doubt true for you and perhaps many others. I left because I could no longer ignore the inconsistencies and falsehoods. Perhaps that could be interpreted as the need for growth, but I simply viewed it as finding out I had believed a lie and could no longer pretend. I'm just a simple guy!

 

But I ultimately HAD to leave it because I was on a road of growth.

That requires the assumptions that there is something to grow (spirit?) and that somehow the latest change of beliefs is an improvement. I have no reason to make those assumptions.

 

Everybody thinks they're right. Probably none of us are. Except maybe me. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How completed, connected, fulfilled, expanded as an individual, not just in themselves but in connection with others, does the road you have found give you?

 

Hi AM,

 

I'm trying to "get" where you are coming from. I know you are a musician and composer...

 

I feel the way you describe in the quote above, when I improvise and compose/arrange at a certain level, yet I find it difficult to put into words. It's almost like an out-of-body experience when I create at that "level". I don't know if this is what you are talking about, but for me there is no greater experience or fulfillment than this except when I am immersed in nature. Also, in a rare moment when I connect with another person or animal through common understanding or emotionally, I get that feeling of two lives becoming at one.

Time to take time to respond to you, which I wished to before.

 

All what you say I know as part of what I attempt to express through me as a musician. In fact, it was music that gave release of that in me, as no other voice could do when I needed it to 'minister' to me. I find it the closest thing to touching the face of it. But at best it is a finite attempt to speak its voice, a personal effort to reflect it, but never expressing its full being.

 

As I write, like you, I move into a place where I can let it flow through me, and as sating as it can be, to express love, passion, vision, truth, hope, light, and life, it's a small sliver of the infinity that stands behind the river that emerges, expressing itself from that Source. I don't know how else to describe it.

 

I am also wondering if what you describe as "the ground of our being" is some type of Monism, or how Paul Tillich uses the phrase.

Those are terms I've heard that seem to fit the experience. I would agree with them.

 

To me, what makes life "alive" is mysterious and wonderful. Beyond that, I'm ignorant!

I think its a mistake to try to put a name on it, whether it's through religion or science. There is truth that is light from the heart that no reason or council of priests can inform us of.

 

 

For whatever any of this is worth, it's what is in me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, what makes life "alive" is mysterious and wonderful. Beyond that, I'm ignorant!

I think its a mistake to try to put a name on it, whether it's through religion or science.

I disagree. I think someone must try their best to resolve the mysteries that organisms present us with. Some of us must choose knowledge rather than ignorance, understanding instead of confusion.

 

I would agree that there seems to be something rather cold about trying to lift the veil of mystery that shrouds life’s essence. But I think someone must make the effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, what makes life "alive" is mysterious and wonderful. Beyond that, I'm ignorant!

I think its a mistake to try to put a name on it, whether it's through religion or science.

I disagree. I think someone must try their best to resolve the mysteries that organisms present us with. Some of us must choose knowledge rather than ignorance, understanding instead of confusion.

There is something very different between trying to catalog nature for discussion in the pursuit of knowledge over ignorance. In no way what I said relates to the embrace of ignorance. On the contrary, I believe to have knowledge of it is of ultimate benefit. The problem with labels and language, especially in the realm of the transcendent, is that those words are at best attempts describe its form, and those words then define its 'being' to us.

 

They are all external assessments, especially in the discipline of science - which they should be. But those definitions are limited in the extreme, and our understandings of them will center around those and can never broach beyond into its interior dimensions. Then of ultimate failing, when you take something of say the nature of ultimate being and make some defining label of it like you would a zebra, needless to say that act places major barriers between its Being and your understanding of it.

 

It's not about being ignorant, its about moving past those things that limit knowledge to the essence of being - 'immaterial being' (to tie this to the OP).

 

I would agree that there seems to be something rather cold about trying to lift the veil of mystery that shrouds life’s essence. But I think someone must make the effort.

There's nothing cold about understanding the how of things. I applaud the effort. What's cold is to dismiss everything else that isn't that perspective of it and claim that the flat, dissected corpse on the examining table is the ultimate truth. It's not the science, it the assumed belief that this is all there is because the tools designed to look at the exteriors are showing exteriors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In no way what I said relates to the embrace of ignorance.

Oh okay, cool. I just misunderstood you then.

 

The problem with labels and language, especially in the realm of the transcendent, is that those words are at best attempts describe its form, and those words then define its 'being' to us.

I’m not sure what you’re driving at here. I agree language has its limitations. But I think it may be more powerful than you seem to be giving it credit for here.

 

There's nothing cold about understanding the how of things.

I have seen you assert that science is only about the how of things several times. But I am fairly sure that many scientists also methodically try to discover the why of things in addition to the how.

 

What's cold is to dismiss everything else that isn't that perspective of it and claim that the flat, dissected corpse on the examining table is the ultimate truth.

I agree with this. And I don’t believe it is the dead that primarily interest many biologists, for instance, but rather the living.

 

 

I’m not sure that I’m following you on several things, especially about “exteriors” and “interiors”. By interior are you meaning something like “subjective realm”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with labels and language, especially in the realm of the transcendent, is that those words are at best attempts describe its form, and those words then define its 'being' to us.

I’m not sure what you’re driving at here. I agree language has its limitations. But I think it may be more powerful than you seem to be giving it credit for here.

Legion, could you express your thoughts on this a little more please?

 

I believe language possibly could express things in a more powerful manner if people were actually aware of the limitations in the language.

 

There's nothing cold about understanding the how of things.

I have seen you assert that science is only about the how of things several times. But I am fairly sure that many scientists also methodically try to discover the why of things in addition to the how.

Wouldn't the questions of "why" imply intent or purpose? "Why is the sky blue?" can be answered, but when one asks, "Why do the atoms only reflect blue light?" is a little more tricky. I think there are degrees within the causal chain, but taken on a larger scale of wonderment, the whys can't be answered, IMO. How is one going to find "mind" (for lack of a better word)? Science decribes the pattern, but not the "why" of the pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legion, could you express your thoughts on this a little more please?

 

I believe language possibly could express things in a more powerful manner if people were actually aware of the limitations in the language.

I guess I could try NotBlinded. I know many times I have thoughts and emotions that I have a difficult time expressing. And during these times, it often feels like it is less a matter of my lack of fluency in English and more that the linear string of words and sentences fails to present my thoughts accurately. And the effort to express things takes great effort. So much so that I am often moved to silence.

 

Wouldn't the questions of "why" imply intent or purpose?

Um well, not always. I think if we are examining final causes then we are inquiring into either intent or purpose. But we may often be examining other causes: material, efficient, formal, or even others that have yet to be categorized. And I am beginning to share the opinion with other scientists that we may exclude final cause from our explanations to our detriment, especially in biology where we may inquire into the function of the various components of organisms. It may be possible to have purpose without intent, if that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with labels and language, especially in the realm of the transcendent, is that those words are at best attempts describe its form, and those words then define its 'being' to us.

I’m not sure what you’re driving at here. I agree language has its limitations. But I think it may be more powerful than you seem to be giving it credit for here.

Trust me I understand the power of language. I believe it can create the experience of reality itself, and hence even influence reality outside of it. Biocultural evolution where feedback loops of culture, created and maintained through symbolic systems such as language, will affect biological evolution itself through things such as sexual selection, are one example of this. In this case it would seem to indicate that downward causation indeed does occur, where the higher emergent levels affect the lower levels below it.

 

Language can place limits on our abilities to even conceptualize certain concepts such as various native tribes being able to grasp concepts like quantum mechanics more easily that of most Western peoples because of their non-liner descriptions of time in their words, and so forth. Our ability to both conceptualize or process in fact will be directly influenced by constructed frameworks of understanding. Sometimes those frameworks are indeed very helpful, other times a detriment.

 

So hence why, especially in looking at concepts of the spiritual in a post-enlightenment world, the languages of it are heavily weighted by a dualistic worldview. Just the use of the word spirit throws in a host of preconceptions rooted in culture. It's seen as the "otherworldly" super naturalists who are trying to explain nature with gods and ghosts and whatnot. Moreover, if the dominant language precludes certain concepts, then those concepts seem very strange and foreign indeed. Whereas for other cultures they would look at us and question what are problem is. Worldviews create language to support itself, which influences the cultural worldspace and how people think and conceive of reality.

 

I am recognizing the power of language.

 

What's cold is to dismiss everything else that isn't that perspective of it and claim that the flat, dissected corpse on the examining table is the ultimate truth.

I agree with this. And I don’t believe it is the dead that primarily interest many biologists, for instance, but rather the living.

By dead, I meant metaphorically - the machine. The vibrant reality of the inner world is typically not a pursuit of the empirical sciences. "My 'soul' is a result of chemical processes", for example, says nothing of the validity of the inner space of being. I'm speaking of reductionism. A flatland of exterior surfaces, so to speak.

 

 

I’m not sure that I’m following you on several things, especially about “exteriors” and “interiors”. By interior are you meaning something like “subjective realm”?

Yes, and all that that entails. First thoughts that come to mind... "the subjective can't be trusted. It's not objective reality". Something like this? :) Object plus Subject = Whole; not Subject as Object.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with much of what you said about language Antlerman.

 

I’m not sure that I’m following you on several things, especially about “exteriors” and “interiors”. By interior are you meaning something like “subjective realm”?

Yes, and all that that entails. First thoughts that come to mind... "the subjective can't be trusted. It's not objective reality". Something like this? :) Object plus Subject = Whole; not Subject as Object.

Are you guessing what my thoughts are about the subjective? If so, then you are being a bit presumptuous in my opinion. Fact is, I can be much more certain about the existence of the subjective world than I can be about an objective one.

 

You used the word "entails". I love that word. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not sure that I’m following you on several things, especially about “exteriors” and “interiors”. By interior are you meaning something like “subjective realm”?

Yes, and all that that entails. First thoughts that come to mind... "the subjective can't be trusted. It's not objective reality". Something like this? :) Object plus Subject = Whole; not Subject as Object.

Are you guessing what my thoughts are about the subjective? If so, then you are being a bit presumptuous in my opinion. Fact is, I can be much more certain about the existence of the subjective world than I can be about an objective one.

 

You used the word "entails". I love that word. :grin:

No I wasn't thinking you specifically. It's something that is a typical response that seems programmed into our culture. It's something not unexpected. I've heard it, I can't count how many times. And if you are more certain about the existence of the subjective world, then you have a good grasp on this already.

 

BTW, I thought the word you loved was 'entrails'. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legion, could you express your thoughts on this a little more please?

 

I believe language possibly could express things in a more powerful manner if people were actually aware of the limitations in the language.

I guess I could try NotBlinded. I know many times I have thoughts and emotions that I have a difficult time expressing. And during these times, it often feels like it is less a matter of my lack of fluency in English and more that the linear string of words and sentences fails to present my thoughts accurately. And the effort to express things takes great effort. So much so that I am often moved to silence.

 

Wouldn't the questions of "why" imply intent or purpose?

Um well, not always. I think if we are examining final causes then we are inquiring into either intent or purpose. But we may often be examining other causes: material, efficient, formal, or even others that have yet to be categorized. And I am beginning to share the opinion with other scientists that we may exclude final cause from our explanations to our detriment, especially in biology where we may inquire into the function of the various components of organisms. It may be possible to have purpose without intent, if that makes sense.

Legion, I had a response all set to go and I thought, "Why the heck am I doing this? He understands that!" So, I hit the back arrow. :D One little exception on my part is is that I think there is intent...inherently...without knowledge.

 

I'm with you...science does need to include the final cause in their searching. I just think they will have to use heavy philosophy and metaphysics to understand it totally. I don't think their will be any evidence, per say, that can be measured that will pop up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, since I was talking last night about writing music as expressive of this (see post above), I thought to proudly post a picture of my piano here, since it was very recently (2 weeks ago) that it finally is in its new home in the remodeling project. It had be unavailable for a very long time for me, and hence why I am finding a place to express this again. In other words, I'm really happy and thought I'd share it here:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All what you say I know as part of what I attempt to express through me as a musician. In fact, it was music that gave release of that in me, as no other voice could do when I needed it to 'minister' to me. I find it the closest thing to touching the face of it. But at best it is a finite attempt to speak its voice, a personal effort to reflect it, but never expressing its full being.

 

As I write, like you, I move into a place where I can let it flow through me, and as sating as it can be, to express love, passion, vision, truth, hope, light, and life, it's a small sliver of the infinity that stands behind the river that emerges, expressing itself from that Source. I don't know how else to describe it.

 

Thanks for your thoughts. You can put this into words better than I can.

 

I also found a similar "experience" (for lack of thinking of a better word) expressed in the old series of books that "The Inner Game Of Tennis" inspired. I would get in this "zone" when improvising on trombone in jazz/rock groups. It was like someone else was performing. It happened when I stopped thinking about what to play, and then my subconscious would take over seemingly on it's own. This would also occur in playing a sport when I didn't have the time to think, but just react. I did some amazing things I didn't realize were possible for me. But maybe this type of experience is more about focus and emptying one's conscious mind as opposed to just expression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, what makes life "alive" is mysterious and wonderful. Beyond that, I'm ignorant!

I think its a mistake to try to put a name on it, whether it's through religion or science.

I disagree. I think someone must try their best to resolve the mysteries that organisms present us with. Some of us must choose knowledge rather than ignorance, understanding instead of confusion.

 

I would agree that there seems to be something rather cold about trying to lift the veil of mystery that shrouds life’s essence. But I think someone must make the effort.

 

 

I agree that knowledge and understanding should be applied to the mysteries we are faced with. The problem is that I lack both, so all I can say is it's mysterious and wonderful! :shrug::HaHa:

 

I don't think it is cold to make the attempt. Nothing could change the power and wonder of life and the universe. The more we know the more we can appreciate them, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.