Well, I'm happy for you if you find comfort and meaning in your belief. I just wouldn't base my economic and industrial strategy on it! — karl stone

Belief in God is also entirely useless in tuning the carburetor on a 57 Chevy convertible. So buh! Bah hum bug! Phooey! What foolishness! Etc ad nauseam infinitum!!

Absudism is a philosophy most notably made popular by Camus - What is says in a sentence or two is, men seem to have a need to seek meaning for their existence. But there is no meaning to be found. This paradox of a need to find meaning where there is none is absurd. — Rank Amateur

Ah, thank you.

Well, first, there is a meaning to be found, any meaning we choose to craft for ourselves.

However, I suspect you and Camus are both referring to some external meaning beyond human invention. I'm not claiming there is no such external meaning, only that no one has been able to provide convincing proof of such a meaning. Nor has anyone been able to prove that there is NOT such an external meaning. Nobody can prove anything, ie. we are ignorant.

My focus is to attempt reconcile reason and religion by realistically facing the evidence of our ignorance (reason), and using that ignorance to constructively enhance our relationship with reality (religion).

And so for instance, I suggest a shift of focus to experience, rather than interpretations of experience.

Interpretations (from any side) are mired in ignorance and conflict, a pointlessly repetitive loop leading to nothing but more of the same, proven by 500+ years of inconclusive debate. Not an act of reason. Nor an act of true religion, imho, given the extensive conflict involved.

Experience free of interpretation can be rooted in the act of observation. It could perhaps also be rooted in the act of prayer, if the prayer is characterized not by talking, asking or believing, but in listening. Pretty much the same thing as observation.

Jesus suggested "dying to be reborn". While not claiming to know exactly what he meant by that, to me it means, dying to the symbolic and being reborn in the real. Not ideas about the real. The real.

Jake - do see this as a kind of restatement of Absurdism ? — Rank Amateur

Apologies, I don't understand the question, can you clarify? That is, I don't know what Absurdism is, not being an actual philosophy but only a honking blowhard.

Well, again, we seem to be falling in to the trap of comparing religion and science. This incessant comparison seems to be based on the assumption that both enterprises concern themselves with facts about reality. As I've typed many times, perhaps too many, I think the situation is more accurately described this way...

1) Science concerns itself with facts about reality.

2) Religion concerns itself with our relationship with reality.

Religion is poor science, and science is poor religion. Apples and oranges.

Here's a prescription for uniting reason and religion.

In those cases where ignorance is inevitable and abundant (such as the God debate), the rational act is to embrace ignorance, and mine this abundant resource for every value which it can provide. — Baba Jake

It's an act of reason to recognize the reality of our ignorance, proven by at least 500 years of totally inconclusive God debate.

It's an act of religion to use the fact of our ignorance to constructively enhance our relationship with reality. Relationship. Emotional. Psychological. The reality of where human beings live.

I think the software side has a long way to go. — Devans99

All very good points, and well said. Thanks.

While what you say hits the mark, we might keep in mind that digital intelligence is not going to evolve at the same glacial pace that human intelligence did. As example, the entire history of digital intelligence so far almost fits within my single human lifetime. And as AI is aimed back upon itself the resulting feedback loop is likely to accelerate the development of machine intelligence considerably. Hardly an original insight, but something to keep in mind perhaps...

And I think it's the emotional investment of both theists and atheists that keep them from settling on the rationally agnostic mid point. — karl stone

Aha! A miracle has occurred! We find a point of agreement! :smile: Let's build on it...

It's of course true that agnosticism is almost always seen as a mid point between theism and atheism. However, that is not the only possible way to look at it.

The "regular agnostic" concludes that neither theists or atheists have convincing proof, and so they remain undecided as to which of these positions they will adopt for themselves. The "regular agnostic" is still within the theist vs. atheist paradigm. As example, they still accept the assumption shared by theism and atheism, that the point of the inquiry should be to find an answer, the "regular agnostic" just isn't sure which of the answers offered by theists or atheists is the best.

It's possible for a "regular agnostic" to reason their way deeper in to agnosticism. They can, for example, discard the theist vs. atheist paradigm entirely, being neither theist, atheist, nor between the two, but instead outside of the entire God debate framework.

As example, what I call a "fundamentalist agnostic" can decline the assumption that the goal of such investigations should be to find an answer. What if what the God inquiry has discovered is that we are ignorant, and....

That's a good thing!

Here's a little story to begin to illustrate....

You met a girl at the bus stop and she invited you home for lunch. A few hours later you're walking hand in hand with her in to her bedroom. What will make this an experience you are likely to remember the rest of your life? Ignorance!

Now imagine that you marry the girl, and 37 years later are again walking in to the bedroom with her. What will make this an experience you won't remember until next Tuesday. Not enough ignorance!

Ignorance can be the enemy when we are dealing with matters of survival. Other than that, ignorance is often what keeps life fresh and makes it magical.

The fundamentalist agnostic rejects the simplistic assumption that ignorance is automatically a bad thing. In those cases where ignorance is inevitable and abundant (such as the God debate), the rational act is to embrace ignorance, and mine this abundant resource for every value which it can provide.

But, but, but.... You're very concerned with reality you say? Ok, great.

The overwhelming vast majority of reality from the very smallest to very largest scales is.... nothing.

Trust me, I'm open to anything. — Nasir Shuja

Well, let's find out. :smile:

My .000000000003 bitcoins worth of advice would be....

Stop reading. Stop concerning yourself with what somebody else said. Do your own homework.

Stop thinking. That is, stop concerning yourself with theories about reality.

Instead, focus on observation of reality. Embrace observation, not as a means to some other end such as theories and conclusions, but for it's own value.

Stop taking advice from strangers. You can start with this post if you'd like. :smile:

So if the problem is that we are social animals and but other people are frustrating, how does one resolve this tension? — schopenhauer1

First, other people tend to be frustrating for people like us, nerds. Generally speaking, on average, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the ability to process logic calculations and social skills.

Other people are not frustrating for everyone. As example, one member of our family spent her career as a professional salesperson. She LOVES people and is connected to every other person in our state, with a non-stop schedule of social activities.

Being a nerdy nerd man myself, with limited social skills and serious hermit tendencies, I've reflected on this quite a bit. My theory for the moment is that people who are not intensely logic oriented don't find humans as frustrating, because they have little expectation that people will be logical. That is, they are better aligned with reality than we nerds tend to be.

Anyway, getting back to your question...

So if the problem is that we are social animals and but other people are frustrating, how does one resolve this tension? — schopenhauer1

In my nerdy analysis, saying that we are social animals is an imprecise diagnosis. Closer to the truth, imho, is this....

1) The inherently divisive nature of thought creates a human experience of being separate from reality.

2) Thus, we feel the need to bond, connect, unite with something.

3) Humans are typically very accessible and engaging, and thus a common target for bonding. But not a necessary target, just a convenient target.

I spend a LOT of time in the north Florida woods, typically sunrise to sunset on any day with decent weather. I never feel lonely out there by myself because I've learned how to bond with that environment. It's much like making a human friend, you have to invest a lot of time, and open yourself up to the experience.

Imho, people are a means to the end of bonding, and if one can successfully find another effective means of bonding, people can become less important.

For myself, I wouldn't go so far as to say humans are unnecessary. I've been happily married for 40 years, and without that human connection my situation would likely not be so simple or satisfactory.

Here's real world evidence of where we are going. Consider the incredible popularity of dogs. Why are dogs so popular? Because they are very loyal enthusiastic friends, who will submit to our control. Important, please note, we don't really care that dogs aren't human. What we care about is: 1) loyal friends, 2) under our control.

The point here is that digital intelligence will eventually out compete dogs as man's best friend. Right now at this moment, you dear reader, an anonymous Internet entity with few observable human properties, is out competing all real world people, due to your willingness to read this post. It's only one more step from here to you being replaced with a fully digital "friend".

But we are just machines. We have inputs and outputs, memory and a CPU. It's just we are so much more complex than current computers that we class ourselves apart when we are basically the same. — Devans99

This sounds about right to me.

It seems the word "intelligence" is really a comparative term, not a label for some fixed position. We consider ourselves intelligent by comparison to the only other life we know, Earth bound animals. If the comparison was instead to an alien civilization a billion years beyond our own, then we wouldn't label ourselves as intelligent.

Our concept of intelligence is derived from what may turn out to be a very narrow spectrum, single cell life to humans. That seems like a huge leap to us from within the narrow spectrum, but as the alien example illustrates intelligence may range so far beyond what we know that we wouldn't recognize it as intelligence, but it would seem to us to be magic, or more likely we wouldn't perceive it at, just as the Internet is entirely invisible to other Earthly species.

I suspect we aren't intelligent enough to grasp what machine intelligence will be capable of.

Wow, what an interesting discussion. Way to go Mr. Crank.

My best guess is that we'll never come to a conclusion regarding sexual expression and that the pendulum will continually swing back and forth, bringing periods that are more or less liberal in a predictable cycle. Whatever phase we might be in at a moment in time somebody will always be complaining and trying to take us towards another phase.

One thing the opening post suggests is that sex with software will increasingly be the issue as porn technology matures. Software, with various mechanical attachments, will eventually be able to meet our romantic and sexual needs better than any human, and this whole concern about what humans are doing with other humans is likely to naturally pass from the scene over time.

I'm offering no opinion regarding whether this is good or bad, because having an opinion seems somewhat pointless in regards to developments that appear to be inevitable. The porn industry is already huge (The porn industry makes more money than Major League Baseball, The NFL and The NBA combined.) and will only grow larger as the technical quality of the fantasy is improved.

As example, imagine a porn model photo. Now make the photo in to a video. Now project the video in to 3D space, like a hologram. Now make the 3D model photo realistic. Now make the model fully interactive.

Once we can have literally anything we want, what will sustain our interest in fellow humans, a highly imperfect realm built upon endless negotiation and compromise?

My prediction is that such developments will in time render the issue of human to human porn a thing of the past.

Is pleasure and convenience is worth the death of innocent sentient beings? — chatterbears

To me personally, this isn't the interesting question because I already agree with your sentiments (though I did kill a roach today). To me the more interesting question is not moral but tactical, what is the most effective way to share this understanding?

Hi Sign,

Your view also reminds me of negative theology in the revelation of the possibility of a not-knowing and a not-needing-to-know. — sign

For starters, it would satisfy me just that we question whether a search for answers (regarding the largest of questions) should automatically be assumed to be the best way to proceed.

But when 'reason' is appealed to as a kind of fixed object that doesn't divide and interrogate itself, is this still reason, or an idol named 'reason'? — sign

Yes, you get it. If reason is assumed to be a "one true way" in every circumstance it's on the edge of becoming a kind of religion.

I would be happy to. He is an interesting, flawed, and complicated man. Very much the type of person one should look to to understand Catholicism. — Rank Amateur

Ok, take us there, as your time permits. A Merton thread, or general Catholic thread perhaps? Not sure how it should be organized given the enormity of the subject.

Appreciate it! That should do it for me, thanks again.

n this form and hosted as it is, yes it's just a service from PlushForums. But I believe it's a fork of VanillaForums, which is open source and available to run yourself. — jamalrob

Ah ha, right, thanks, I almost remember now. So PlushForums is a souped up version of Vanilla. The souped up version is proprietary, but the underlying code is open source. Do I have it now?

“Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.” — Merton

Good quote, thanks. I'd like to learn more about Merton should you ever wish to so instruct us.

From the Fundamentalist Agnostic :smile: perspective faith is an unnecessary step if we decline the very widely held assumption shared by theists and atheists alike that the point of the inquiry should be to find an answer, a knowing. As philosophers we might observe how rarely this assumption is questioned.

On many (most? all?) subjects, reason leads to a clear minded recognition of our ignorance. — Pattern-chaser

Well, there are many, many subjects where we have exhaustive data. As example, reason has proven itself the best methodology for building bridges, beyond any doubt. This is true of very many things at human scale.

But, being qualified for many things does not automatically equal being qualified for everything. This is the unwarranted leap that many of us are making.

We could move if necessary, say if it became too expensive, but it would mean starting from scratch unless we had control over the source code and database of the new forum. So if I hosted the new forum and could change the code, access the database directly, and so on, then I could conceivably run a script to import the data from the PlushForums JSON export. — jamalrob

Thanks. So this software is available from PlushForums and nowhere else, correct?

Again, I'm just curious, not making any point here.

We back up your content every hour, so it is perfectly safe.

If one person, or one company, is in sole charge of backups the data isn't perfectly safe.

and my interest in this debate is more about the is belief in anything an active act - than in any kind of theist - non theist debate. — Rank Amateur

I understand, and respect your style here. But, should it ever interest you, you should feel free to make the Catholic case, imho. We all know you're not an annoying evangelist, and it's possible to make the Catholic case without being one, as you already know. We're all making our cases, you should feel free to do the same.

But I completely agree that both science and reason - have been elevated to a religion based on faith by many - and many of those are completely blind to this. — Rank Amateur

What's interesting and useful about this reality is that it can help illustrate to non-theists how religious faith may come to be. When those adamantly against religious faith do so using a faith of their own, that tells us that faith is part of the human condition, not just the religious condition.

Personally, I have a strong (and sometime loud) faith that nobody knows the answers to any of this, and there's no way to prove that either. But that doesn't stop me from believing in my own perspective. We're all in pretty much the same boat, and the great divides so often proposed are largely a fantasy.

I am not sure that is it Jake - I think it is tactic. And I think that was Russels objective. And the purpose is, there is a do loop in the argument if it is not there. IMO he did like the fact that by the application of reason alone the Atheist position was and is no more valid than the theist position. He was looking for a superior atheist position - and his solution was to relieve the atheist from any responsibility of supporting their position and solely basing their position that there is no god until the theist can support their argument to their satisfaction. It is an attempt to move the "there is no god" belief to the status quo - the given - until proved otherwise. — Rank Amateur

I agree with all of this, but...

It varies. Some atheists are indeed using this dodge as a deliberate debate tactic, that's true. But, imho, most atheists simply don't understand that they too are people of faith, and are arguing sincerely from that misunderstanding.

And so I should probably lighten up and stop kicking their ass.

My lame excuse is that I've been discussing this almost daily for 20 years, and conversations like this almost never make it past this point, and riding the same old merry-go-round over and over and over again does try my admittedly limited patience. Which is entirely my problem. I'll try to keep that in mind.

The problem with this approach is that you seem to be using reason to determine that those who take the application of reason for granted have a blind faith. — Ciaran

Yes, this is a common and understandable misunderstanding, which I should work harder to clear up.

We can use reason to discover reason's limits. As example, we can examine the evidence of our lives using reason, and discover that we can't fall in love using only reason. We used reason to conduct that analysis, and in doing so discovered a limitation of reason.

Reason has been proven useful for very many things on human scale, way too many to begin to list. But no one has proven that human reason is also qualified to meaningfully analyze the very largest of questions.

The very same situation exists for holy books. Holy books have provided meaning and comfort to billions of people over thousands of years. But we can't leap blindly from the impressive success to the assumption that therefore holy books are also qualified to meaningfully analyze the very largest of questions, right?

If members would simply apply the very same methodology to atheism that they apply to theism (ie. intellectual honesty) they will soon discover that no one can prove the qualifications of their chosen authority, and thus the entire God debate merry-go-round comes screeching to a halt.

And that is where a more interesting inquiry might begin.

Is it only the lack of belief in god that is an active act or does it work that way for all lack of belief? — DingoJones

It's always an active act, unless the person has never heard of whatever is being examined. So, a baby's lack of belief in God is not an active act. Once they've heard of the God idea, whether they choose to believe or not, that's an active act, based on reference to some chosen authority.

The reason you don't believe in God is that you've examined God claims using your chosen authority, human reason, and by that process have concluded that sufficient evidence is lacking. The validity of your conclusion depends entirely on whether human reason is qualified to deliver meaningful answers on this set of questions, just as the validity of theist conclusions typically depends on whether their chosen holy book is so qualified.

If you wish for anyone else to accept your conclusions, you bear the exact same burden as the theist, you have to prove the qualifications of your chosen authority. And just like the theist, you will be unable to do so. And thus we arrive at what unites all of us on questions of this scale, our ignorance.

If we are operating from the unexamined assumption that the point of such inquiries should be to find an answer, (an assumption shared by almost all theists and atheists) then discovering our ignorance can be seen as a bad thing, an unwelcome defeat.

But we don't have to blindly accept the assumption that the most useful goal for such an enterprise must be to find "The Answer". We don't have to blindly accept that assumption just because almost everyone else does. We can question that assumption. We can explore alternatives. We can do philosophy.

However I believe the statement " there is no God" is also a positive assertion, that also has a burden of proof. — Rank Amateur

The problem you are up against is that many, perhaps most, atheists don't realize that they are making a positive assertion. This seems especially true of the more adamant atheists.

This is actually quite interesting, and should be even more so to a person of religious faith such as yourself. The reason so many atheists don't realize they are making a positive assertion is that they take the qualifications of human reason for any and all subjects to be an obvious given which requires no inspection or challenge. That is...

They are people of faith. Or rather, people of blind faith, people of faith who don't realize that they are people of faith.

Naturally, such an insight can be highly offensive to any atheist who has written 10,000 forum posts regarding how silly/bad/stupid etc faith is.

Science is agnostic with regard to hypotheses lacking conclusive evidence. — karl stone

Except for the blind faith in science itself.

Agree completely - furthermore the entire reason for this semantic difference is purely tactical. Which is fine, if your objective is to win an argument - useless if your objective is some exchange of reasonable ideas in an honest search for a truth. — Rank Amateur

Yes, that's it. Some of our younger atheist friends (and many leading atheist spokesmen too) don't understand the difference between reason and ideology. The primary goal of the ideologist, whether religious, atheist or other, is to win. Reason doesn't care who wins.

I think atheists have, in theory, a valid methodology in reason. The problem is often that, 1) they don't understand what reason is, or 2) they want to wave the reason flag without actually doing reason.

If one follows the trail of reason on these subjects, one doesn't wind up being a member of either the theist or atheist camp. One doesn't even wind up being a regular agnostic, because agnostics typically recognize the theist vs. atheist paradigm as being the valid question they are trying to answer.

On subjects of such enormous scale, reason leads to a clear minded recognition of our ignorance.

Once the fact of our ignorance is seen and accepted, the next step on the path of reason is to ask what constructive use can be made of this abundant asset.

Discussions on philosophy forums almost never get that far, as the vast majority of users are still trapped inside the theist vs. atheist contest, still entangled in fantasy knowings of various flavors.

The thing is that with respect to whether atheism obtains or not, where/how the lack of belief arrives is irrelevant. — Terrapin Station

Ok, so if one's atheism arises from the use of tarot cards, that's just as valid as any other method, and the difference between one chosen authority and another is irrelevant. There's no need to examine and question any particular chosen authority, because they are all equally valid, and how one arises at one's views, on any subject, is irrelevant.

Hilariously flawed, you are talking right out your ass.
First, you tell me im trusting an authority called reasoning and therefore my view is no more or less justified than the view of the one not based on reason but ancient books written by primitives and what is your basis for doing that? Reason!
Spectacular failure. Not to mention I just got through explaining exactly why your assertion here is wrong.
Cherry on the cake? You dont even know what intellectual dishonesty means!
Congratulations sir, you have the proud distinction of the single, most profoundly ignorant post I have ever bothered to respond to. What can I say, i had a good long laugh.
We are done here, you go ahead and have the last word. — DingoJones

Let me guess... You're 22, right?

Oh well, Rome wasn't built in a day. In your defense some very bright leading minds have spent their entire lives stumbling around in the confusion you are expressing.

Their is an ecstasy in enlightenment talk. — sign

Well, ok, yes, I have no objection to someone enjoying the talk. Just trying to help clarify what our relationship with that is. If we're talking the talk because it's fun, and we know that's what we're doing, I have no complaints. To the degree I have a complaint, it is with the illusion that the talking will lead to anything other than more talking.

The anti-guru approach might be summed up as a pointing at the seeking as the very thing it seeks and yet flees. — sign

I'm not opposed to seeking, just trying to make such efforts more realistic. If we are seeking to be a bit saner, sounds good to me. If we are seeking for some permanent perfect solution, sounds like a self delusional becoming trip. And I'm not even against that, but, you know, this is a philosophy forum, so...

Well, it is a sort of semantic game but I think it is the believer who makes it that way, by calling “disbelief” a belief. The goal is to create a false equivalence so the believer doesnt have to support their position. — DingoJones

Belief in God is based on trust in the qualifications of some authority, typically a holy book.

Disbelief in God is based on trust in the qualifications of an authority too, typically human reason.

The qualifications of both of these authorities are reasonably challenged. That process is called "reason".

Insisting that the other fellow bears the burden of proving the qualifications of their chosen authority, but that we bear no burden of proving the qualifications of our chosen authority, is called "intellectual dishonesty". Such a process is not reason at all, but merely ideology....

.... the very thing which probably alienates you from religion.

Imho, unity is the reality, and that what is being discussed are various techniques for overcoming the perception of division. — Jake

Exactly. I couldn't have said it better. — BrianW

this definition from "American Atheist"

"Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods" — Rank Amateur

Rank, you can't rely on most atheists to explain atheism to you, as they don't understand it themselves. In 20 years of discussing this on a variety of atheist and philosophy websites I've rarely encountered an atheist who understands, and will admit, that they are making a positive claim which requires a defense, just like the theist positive claim. Like most theists, they are typically just repeating memorized phrases they've heard from others.

One doesn't require authority to lack belief in something, although one would perhaps require evidence to otherwise make positive claims. — VoidDetector

You're making a positive claim, you just don't realize that you are.

One thing the "anti-guru" approach (for lack of a better word) may be able to contribute is to help the reader clarify their relationship with all these enlightenment related philosophies.

Does the reader see the philosophies as a means to an end? Or are they an end in themselves?

As example, imagine that it could be proven that the only path to enlightenment was to play golf, and that everything else was a waste of time. Would the reader then immediately drop the philosophies and buy some golf clubs? Or would the reader decline golf and remain a philosopher?

What is the real goal? What is the bottom line for the reader?

I think, first, one transcends the relative. That is achieved by directing the consciousness to that which is constant. — BrianW

So thought conceptually divides reality in to the "relative" and the "constant". And then, having created the division, thought cooks up the goal of moving from the relative towards the constant in order to heal the division.

Put another way, thought conceptually divides reality in to "me" and "everything else", a process which generates fear and suffering, so then thought cooks up the goal of somehow reuniting "me" with "everything else" to escape the suffering.

Why not just take a break from thinking?

What's the point of including all the complex esoteric concepts middlemen? Why not just skip all of that?

To me, it all seems to boil down to where one thinks the illusion of division is being generated.

GURU: If one sees the source of the illusion being incorrect thought content, that suggests a process of philosophy etc to replace the incorrect thoughts with correct thoughts, a very elaborate process which has been going on for thousands of years.

ANTI-GURU: If one sees the source of the illusion being the medium of thought, then the subject becomes radically simpler. Take a break from thinking.

What the guru approach has going for it is that it promises a perfect permanent solution.

What the anti-guru approach has going for it is that the guru approach can't deliver on it's promise.

If the focus of such endeavors was on experience, and not interpretations of experience, then a vast ocean of unnecessary conflict would be rendered unnecessary.

This in my interpretation, and it's way better than anybody else's interpretation, so there!

In the coming forum utopia, all members you experience will be fully customizable digital entities. Seriously.

Each of us has our preferences of what topics we want to explore, and how we want to explore them. And none of us can perfectly meet the needs of our fellow members, and most of us probably can't come close. And so here we are stuck with each other's limitations, and we put up with that because the only other option is the real world where getting what one wants in a philosophical experience is even more problematic and inconvenient.

Point being, none of us are capable of meeting your discussion needs as well as the coming digital entities, so we human members will be phased out, ignored, dismissed and discarded, having failed to compete successfully with conversation partners who can be anything you want.

One problem that will have to be overcome is that we don't yet really even know what we want, given that getting exactly what we want has never been an option. As example, see my demand for redheads above, how primitive of a 1950's Playboy pinup fantasy request, but the best my imagination can do in a world characterized by imperfection, limitation and compromise.

We're already half way there. As today's forum users we've already happily given up faces, names, voices, gender, age and so much of what makes us human so that we can do philosophy in the most convenient manner possible. We want what we want, and we'll discard anything that gets in the way of us obtaining it.

We've got a way to go yet technically, but smart people are working in that direction. As example, check out CleverBot.

Another example is CrazyTalk, very affordable software for Windows and Mac which allows you to take a face photo like the redhead above, and make her say anything you want.

So, in the coming forum utopia, instead of reading this post you'd be talking with a video of the redhead above, at which point you will completely lose all interest in anything me, a mere human, might have to say. But I won't care, because I'll be talking to the redhead too.

What is the source of the illusion of division? — Jake

I think it is confounding the absolute with the relative. — BrianW

What is it that divides reality in to the "absolute" and the "relative"?

I think enlightenment is where the consciousness is fixed in the state of absoluteness because in that state one is all and all is one. — BrianW

How does one remain fixed in a "state of absoluteness where all is one" using a medium that operates by a process of division?

I'm just happy the Brits, every now and then, are taking the pressure off us Americans for being the biggest shitshow country — Maw

:smile: :smile:

Meaning no disrespect to anyone, and being guilty of excessive typoholic philosophy myself....

What if we were to just sweep all these ideas away and focus on the EXPERIENCE of unity?

Typically, we try to use some collection of ideas as a tool which is supposed to move us towards the experience of unity. Assembling the correct collection of ideas is seen as important, so we spend a LOT of time on that, studying various religions and philosophies etc.

What if we just skipped over all the ideas?

When we're physically hungry we don't turn it in to some sophisticated philosophical issue requiring experts etc, we are practical and direct, and just go get something to eat.

Why not approach psychic hunger in the same manner? Why not cut out the middleman of ideas and just stop doing so much of that which is creating the illusion of division?