It's impossible to really discuss unity in language, because language is built of thought, and thought is built of division. — Jake
And all language is thought. And all thought operates by division. Thus, all discussions are polluted by a built-in bias for division. — Jake
Holding... Okay, I just held it for 2 minutes and seventeen seconds. What did I confirm???
— praxis
You are intimately connected to everything around you. The boundary line between "you" and "everything else" is nowhere near as neat and tidy as we typically assume.
Assuming you’re not kidding around, you appear to be suggesting that unity or non-duality is for some reason inherently virtuous or *pure*. Can you explain how/why that may be? — praxis
Holding my breath resulted in no such confirmation. If anything, after about two minutes the boundary between breathing and not breathing became quite distinct. — praxis
f, you believe as I do, that some inherent search for meaning and purpose is part of the human condition. — Rank Amateur
Happiness and suffering are subjective but highly intuitive, as well as measurable by various means. Any reason these can’t these be held as base values and science given the authority to develop normative ethics? Maybe our moral intuitions are not based in suffering/happiness or human flourishing. Maybe they’re based in something much more primitive and irrational, and no amount of reason, training, or discipline can override them. Maybe all we can do is tell stories to each other and watch as we ruin the world for ourselves. — praxis
This seems true, but that doesn't automatically equal it being wise. Instead of debating competing meanings we might look more closely at what meaning is. — Jake
Assuming you’re not kidding around, you appear to be suggesting that unity or non-duality is for some reason inherently virtuous or *pure*. Can you explain how/why that may be?
— praxis
I'm suggesting that 1) unity is the fact of reality, and 2) aligning ourselves with reality to the degree that is possible is inherently rational. — Jake
Holding my breath resulted in no such confirmation. If anything, after about two minutes the boundary between breathing and not breathing became quite distinct.
— praxis
You're arguing just to be arguing. If I'm wrong about that and you do really wish to investigate such topics the best move would likely be to conduct your own investigation. Instead of waiting for me to type something so you can tell me why it's wrong, dig in to it yourself. Or not, as you prefer.
Meaning provides a comforting illusion of knowing which some of us find irresistible.
Focusing on reality requires a process of surrender. Focusing intently on observation of reality requires a surrender of me, me, me and all my little thoughts, thoughts, thoughts. We typically don't really want to surrender, and even if we do a lifetime habit of chronic overthinking requires work, patience, and good luck to overcome.
So yes, we very often seek meaning. That doesn't necessarily mean that seeking meaning is the best choice we can make. — Jake
I’m saying that in attributing a value scientists cannot expect to know, define or control happiness in any way. — Possibility
You’ve made some claims on a public forum that is dedicated to truth seeking, Jake. If you’re unable substantiating these claims you can just be honest and admit it. That would be the honorable thing to do. — praxis
Do you think that the "phenomena" you perceive are consistent, or otherwise correlate, with "things" that are external from your own mind?. In other words, do you believe that your perceptions relate to a certain way of things that holds true regardless of whether or not you happen to perceive them?
It's basically the assumption that there's some kind of "real" component to the things our senses perceive.
P.S. I was pointing to you as an example to show T-Clark that those who embrace science do not necessarily deny everything else in order to do so. It would not be rational to be offended by this. — VagabondSpectre
Are you suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with being separate from (enter your preferred term here)? — praxis
From my point of view, we aren't separate, a fact which anyone can confirm for themselves with this experiment. Hold your breath for 2 minutes. — Jake
Holding... Okay, I just held it for 2 minutes and seventeen seconds. What did I confirm??? — praxis
You are intimately connected to everything around you. The boundary line between "you" and "everything else" is nowhere near as neat and tidy as we typically assume. — Jake
Holding my breath resulted in no such confirmation. If anything, after about two minutes the boundary between breathing and not breathing became quite distinct. — praxis
You're arguing just to be arguing. — Jake
You’ve made some claims on a public forum that is dedicated to truth seeking, Jake. If you’re unable substantiating these claims you can just be honest and admit it. That would be the honorable thing to do. — praxis
I'm not here to jerk you off. — Jake
No real issue with all that - may argue some there is some balance point between experience, refection, and attempts at understanding. — Rank Amateur
Here is the point I was trying to make, in relation to Rahner's preapprehension. That the reason or source of this desire is the inherent feeling there is something there in all of us. — Rank Amateur
You're also not here to explain your goofy notions, apparently. — praxis
You're also not here to explain your goofy notions, apparently.
— praxis
I'm here to explain my goofy notions with folks who are actually interested in the topics being discussed. — Jake
To debunk this, start your own thread where you explore such topics in some depth without reference to me or anybody else. If we remove me and all other male egos are you still interested? Probably not, but prove me wrong if you can. — Jake
Meaning that you're only interested in an unquestioning audience and you don't want anyone to debunk your goofy ideas. I think we all get that. — praxis
Why not? Maybe it’s our primitive egos that believe our emotional lives can’t be quantified. — praxis
The DMT documentary I mentioned earlier was fascinating to me because the participants in the study reported compelling experience of another level of reality, or so it seemed to them. According to them this other level of reality they experienced felt more real than our everyday lives.
And while I wouldn't want to push the comparison too far, much of what they described seemed to sync with Catholic teachings, at least in a general manner. As example, some participants reported experience of an overpowering presence of love that saturated this realm they were exploring. Also a good deal of discussion of ego death.
Most people probably feel that this is just a drug induced hallucination and thus should be dismissed, and that may indeed be an appropriate conclusion. I don't claim to know.
However, we might consider this. You get up in the morning, have that first cup of coffee, sit down at the computer, and your ideas begin flowing effortlessly on to the forum. Are your ideas automatically wrong or fantasy because they are being fueled by caffeine?
It seems at least possible to me that such drugs open channels in the human brain that aren't typically accessible to us, and that to some degree these channels are perceiving something that is actually there. — Jake
When you then make judgements and decisions based only on these measurements, you’re effectively dismissing the breadth of experience outside of that value. — Possibility
Agree - science is very much in the business of looking for stuff that does not exist, and very much not in the business of denying anything with out evidence. — Rank Amateur
Or without any evidence to refute them other than a different world view, we could just believe otherwise honest and unmotivated to misinform people that they believe what they believe to be true. — Rank Amateur
You should know the rules and play by them. — S
If someone were to quote some holy book it would be reasonable to ask that they first prove that the holy book is qualified to speak to the issue at hand.
If someone were to apply logic calculations to a topic it would be reasonable to ask that they first prove that human reason is qualified to speak to the issue at hand. — Jake
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.