Legion Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Don't you do it MagicMonkey! Don't yoooooou doooooo it. Antlerman is not compelled to preface opinion with "in my opinion". fa la la la la Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 They are not fictional expressions of ourselves, they are real projections of ourselves through which we access higher internal states through symbolically externalizing ourselves. It would take some time to explain that, but not in this post. That some take them as literal, is simply a developmental stage of consciousness, identical to the child who sees a cloud 'looking' at him and imagines it as a real person. It's simply a projection of that state of mental development on the world. The cloud is still there, however. But they are fictional. The gods of the bible, and other pantheons were fictional regardless of whether or not the infer anything about reality. In your analogy, yes the cloud is still there, but it's not a person looking at the child. The idea that it is is a fiction. Why is realizing that a bad thing? The idea is no more a fiction a fiction to a child than your perception of reality is not a fiction to you. They are both modes of conscious thought, frameworks of understanding, frameworks of reality. Your sense of a 'scientific reality' is also a fiction of symbols. It's just that your fiction is a more sophisticated one. The next wave of human consciousness to sweep the planet will see your understanding the same way you see the mythological understanding. Simply calling it a fiction is to dismiss it as nothing but fantasy. That simply is not the case. It's a mode of understanding. You know that mythological systems saw themselves as higher than magical systems, that they believed in a fiction? Each new stage of awareness always views itself as the true representation of reality, just as you do know. Fictions, all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 One my hypothesize endlessly about things whose existence can neither be proven or disproven. Does God exist in human experience? Yes. Proven. Hehehe, I don't think so. At least not in the sense most of us are talking about. But this was my point. This is not how everyone talks about God, and "most of us" is irrelevant to the fact that very large numbers do not, and should not be lumped into the same. If you qualify it as I do, "the mythic-literal God", then it is clear and factual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagickMonkey Posted December 28, 2011 Author Share Posted December 28, 2011 They are not fictional expressions of ourselves, they are real projections of ourselves through which we access higher internal states through symbolically externalizing ourselves. It would take some time to explain that, but not in this post. That some take them as literal, is simply a developmental stage of consciousness, identical to the child who sees a cloud 'looking' at him and imagines it as a real person. It's simply a projection of that state of mental development on the world. The cloud is still there, however. But they are fictional. The gods of the bible, and other pantheons were fictional regardless of whether or not the infer anything about reality. In your analogy, yes the cloud is still there, but it's not a person looking at the child. The idea that it is is a fiction. Why is realizing that a bad thing? The idea is no more a fiction a fiction to a child than your perception of reality is not a fiction to you. They are both modes of conscious thought, frameworks of understanding, frameworks of reality. Your sense of a 'scientific reality' is also a fiction of symbols. It's just that your fiction is a more sophisticated one. The next wave of human consciousness to sweep the planet will see your understanding the same way you see the mythological understanding. Simply calling it a fiction is to dismiss it as nothing but fantasy. That simply is not the case. It's a mode of understanding. You know that mythological systems saw themselves as higher than magical systems, that they believed in a fiction? Each new stage of awareness always views itself as the true representation of reality, just as you do know. Fictions, all. I'll readily agree that where my perception of reality doesn't match up with actual reality, it is fiction - as much a fiction as the child thinking a cloud is looking at him. I don't see science in general as a fiction, though where mistakes have been made leading to misunderstandings, fictions have been made. Our understanding of the universe becomes more real and sophisticated, not just by learning new facts, but in realizing that some of our old ideas and understandings were false or incomplete. Obviously, reasonable people also must understand that we have different perspectives of reality that may differ, but not in ways that make one more or less valid than the other. Still, some perspectives and ideas are objectively false, and why not recognize them as so? I don't think any reasonable person today has a problem admitting that future generations will likely have a much better understanding of reality than we do. I don't see why this means we cannot recognize that the personal gods of the past were fictitious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Perhaps for you, meaning and purpose aren't quetions of spirituality, but in religions in general, they are. Let me throw this in as well as religion making a category error to speak to the natural world in matters of science. Purpose and meaning are philosophical propositions. That is the category of mind. It is a matter of reason and philosophy, and not the domain of religion either. The domain of religion is spirit and spirituality. Three domains. Body, mind, spirit. Prior to the Enlightenment all three were under the umbrella of religion, but a very good thing happen. They split and differentiated into their own disciplines. Then a tragedy happened in that the success of science so trumped progress in the other domains that the others began to collapse into the domain of science in empiricism. That positive differentiation in order to fully devote non-distracted attention in the separate domains got swallowed alive into a dissociation of body, mind, and spirit, everything reduced to body. As you yourself just pointed out, there is in fact a knowledge that occurs beyond those domains. Religion's true strength is that it has the one thing that none of the other domains have, not science nor philosophy. That is contemplation. That inner journey beyond concepts into the nature of our own 'is'ness'. That discipline does not exist in philosophy, nor in science, and it entirely valid. In fact without it, there is an incomplete whole. With all three domains, there in balance through integration. Not one area runs itself aground through ignoring the others. BTW, since this is a public forum it goes without saying that everything I say in this context is in fact, my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagickMonkey Posted December 28, 2011 Author Share Posted December 28, 2011 One my hypothesize endlessly about things whose existence can neither be proven or disproven. Does God exist in human experience? Yes. Proven. Hehehe, I don't think so. At least not in the sense most of us are talking about. But this was my point. This is not how everyone talks about God, and "most of us" is irrelevant to the fact that very large numbers do not, and should not be lumped into the same. If you qualify it as I do, "the mythic-literal God", then it is clear and factual. Well, I simply do not care to preface every discussion I have about theism with a long disclaimer about what I mean about god. I think most people will understand I'm talking about a personal deity or multiple personal deities like Yahweh, Zues, etc. Certainly, adding such a disclaimer to my OP would make it read more like a legal document than the motivating statement I intended it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagickMonkey Posted December 28, 2011 Author Share Posted December 28, 2011 Don't you do it MagicMonkey! Don't yoooooou doooooo it. Antlerman is not compelled to preface opinion with "in my opinion". fa la la la la Hahaha 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 BTW, since this is a public forum it goes without saying that everything I say in this context is in fact, my opinion. They can't hang Ant. I try not to do it. But sometimes just for the fuck of it, I'll state an opinion... And I do mean an opinion as in a taste or preference... as pure universal truth. It's so friggin deliciously arrogant. May Karma strike me down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Well, I simply do not care to preface every discussion I have about theism with a long disclaimer about what I mean about god. I think most people will understand I'm talking about a personal deity or multiple personal deities like Yahweh, Zues, etc. Certainly, adding such a disclaimer to my OP would make it read more like a legal document than the motivating statement I intended it to be. But the fact of the matter is, stated without qualification does create problems in communication. Others do feel swept up in that, just like Dawkins statement that God is a Delusion. That's all good and fine for a small sliver of those who believe in God, but he never qualifies that and instead brings everyone down in that. Take this statement: "Black are criminals". Why should you think it necessary to qualify that statement in order to not to take all blacks down in that? This isn't a "PC" thing, its having a discussion about specific beliefs about God. Then I think it needs to be qualified, and that doesn't have to be hard, "The anthropomorphic God" would do just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 BTW, since this is a public forum it goes without saying that everything I say in this context is in fact, my opinion. They can't hang Ant. I try not to do it. But sometimes just for the fuck of it, I'll state an opinion... And I do mean an opinion as in a taste or preference... as pure universal truth. It's so friggin deliciously arrogant. May Karma strike me down. Yes, well that's your problem. You probably are saying it that way. Don't assume others are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 But the fact of the matter is, stated without qualification does create problems in communication. I have to reluctantly agree with Antlerman's assessment here. As I have recently stated elsewhere, in my arrogant opinion, the word "god" has an extreme semantic richness. This invites confusion and disagreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Don't assume others are. Check this hypocrisy out K. lol I'm a retard. Don't you ever tell me what to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagickMonkey Posted December 28, 2011 Author Share Posted December 28, 2011 Perhaps for you, meaning and purpose aren't quetions of spirituality, but in religions in general, they are. Let me throw this in as well as religion making a category error to speak to the natural world in matters of science. Purpose and meaning are philosophical propositions. That is the category of mind. It is a matter of reason and philosophy, and not the domain of religion either. The domain of religion is spirit and spirituality. Three domains. Body, mind, spirit. Prior to the Enlightenment all three were under the umbrella of religion, but a very good thing happen. They split and differentiated into their own disciplines. Then a tragedy happened in that the success of science so trumped progress in the other domains that the others began to collapse into the domain of science in empiricism. That positive differentiation in order to fully devote non-distracted attention in the separate domains got swallowed alive into a dissociation of body, mind, and spirit, everything reduced to body. As you yourself just pointed out, there is in fact a knowledge that occurs beyond those domains. Religion's true strength is that it has the one thing that none of the other domains have, not science nor philosophy. That is contemplation. That inner journey beyond concepts into the nature of our own 'is'ness'. That discipline does not exist in philosophy, nor in science, and it entirely valid. In fact without it, there is an incomplete whole. With all three domains, there in balance through integration. Not one area runs itself aground through ignoring the others. I see no real separation between body, mind, and spirit, other than the last two are within a specific part of the body, and of course, I don't belive in the casper-the-ghost kind of spirit (and it sounds like you don't either). I think the the idea of religion becoming a separate domain than physical reality came about as a way for religious memes to continue to exist. It allowed human minds to remain suitable hosts for religious memes. As far as spirituality goes, maybe there is room for some sort of spirituality divorced from any specific religious meme. For me, though it's kinda hard for me to explain how, science seems to be allowing me to be spiritual in a more substantial way than when I was infected with the christian meme. After some thought, I see that being a physical being is no less special or "spiritual" than if our true selves were the casper-the-ghost sort of spirits. BTW, since this is a public forum it goes without saying that everything I say in this context is in fact, my opinion. Heheh, I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 "I think understanding the objective nature of our minds..." Show me a mind, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagickMonkey Posted December 28, 2011 Author Share Posted December 28, 2011 Well, I simply do not care to preface every discussion I have about theism with a long disclaimer about what I mean about god. I think most people will understand I'm talking about a personal deity or multiple personal deities like Yahweh, Zues, etc. Certainly, adding such a disclaimer to my OP would make it read more like a legal document than the motivating statement I intended it to be. But the fact of the matter is, stated without qualification does create problems in communication. Others do feel swept up in that, just like Dawkins statement that God is a Delusion. That's all good and fine for a small sliver of those who believe in God, but he never qualifies that and instead brings everyone down in that. Take this statement: "Black are criminals". Why should you think it necessary to qualify that statement in order to not to take all blacks down in that? This isn't a "PC" thing, its having a discussion about specific beliefs about God. Then I think it needs to be qualified, and that doesn't have to be hard, "The anthropomorphic God" would do just fine. I don't think the "Blacks are criminals" idea fits, because that statement about blacks doesn't even make a good generality, at least not to reasonable people. The vast majority of people seem to have a personal-god concept of god. Then again, "The anthropomorphic God" or "(in the anthropomorphic or personal-being sense)" isn't too long. I wouldn't have included it in the OP, but perhaps such a disclaimer wouldn't be to bad in a comment immediately following, and perhaps could easily be included in general OP's referencing god. I'll keep that in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagickMonkey Posted December 28, 2011 Author Share Posted December 28, 2011 "I think understanding the objective nature of our minds..." Show me a mind, please. I'd show you mine, but then I'd have to open my skull. You'll just have to see it indirectly through it's byproducts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 "I think understanding the objective nature of our minds..." Show me a mind, please. Gotcha! I got you!!!!!!! I think objective reality is primarily a web of relations. What can be sensed and measured and observed is not reality. These are abstractions. The meat of reality is found in apprehending it's relations. Same thing with the mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 I'd show you mine, but then I'd have to open my skull. You'll just have to see it indirectly through it's byproducts. use mind to observe mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 use mind to observe mind? Do it all the time. It's called empathy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 I think objective reality is primarily a web of relations. What can be sensed and measured and observed is not reality. These are abstractions. The meat of reality is found in apprehending it's relations. Same thing with the mind. It's not a bad explanation. Just remember that is all it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 It's not a bad explanation. Just remember that is all it is. Bravo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Do it all the time. It's called empathy. Highly subjective process, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Do it all the time. It's called empathy. Highly subjective process, don't you think? Absolutely. It's a real art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 The vast majority of people seem to have a personal-god concept of god. Then again, "The anthropomorphic God" or "(in the anthropomorphic or personal-being sense)" isn't too long. I wouldn't have included it in the OP, but perhaps such a disclaimer wouldn't be to bad in a comment immediately following, and perhaps could easily be included in general OP's referencing god. I'll keep that in mind. I was thinking about this over lunch and might have to say I myself don't always qualify what I mean by God (which is quite multi-faceted), which can cause confusion for others as well. I think though in the context of this forum being Ex-Christian theism and spirituality, that itself discloses when some member as myself is talking of God in their own spiritual view it's not the traditional God defined by Christian dogma. The opposite holds true as well that when some member who comes into this forum proclaims that God is a fantasy (an example, not what you did), that those Ex-C'ers in this forum take that as calling their ideas of God hooey too. After all the context is Ex-Christian theism. To be honest, it raised my hackles a bit for that reason. I know how people historically in here respond. I think this is why. I guess I rely on people knowing that I'm not talking about appeasing the Jehovah god with human blood when I speak of God. It's a matter of knowing me around here, in addition to the contexts and ways I speak about God. It's definitely not that way of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Reality is reality. I think... yes and no. I believe there DOES EXIST an objective reality. But I don't believe any of us have direct access to its nature. An understanding of the objective world is a relation between it and a subjective mind. Do you think this "objective reality" exists "out there" somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts