I am glad that you have joined in the debate and I like your point about determining creation stories as being problematic, because in spite of science many people in society do still take them literally.

I am also pleased that you read the writings of Joseph Campbell as I think his analysis of the symbolic dimensions of life are so valuable.

Absolutely. We need to be working towards an "inclusive materialism" if anything. Our science should aspire to expand its horizons. Popper's ideas about "metaphysical research programs" would be an example.

I do agree that there is no absolute one truth waiting to be found. As a teenager I think I would have liked to find a magic answer waiting to be found but, really, it would probably make life very dull.

You say, 'we must turn to something other than science to determine the criteria for truth,' and I do believe that on a daily basis most people search beyond the findings of science, which are just the foundations. And here, is where I would say that relativity comes in because everyone's search is unique. — Jack Cummins

The point was, that before we can judge a particular piece of work which is presented to us as science, as to whether it gives us truth or not, we need some idea as to what constitutes truth. It's probably the case that every person has one's own distinct way of judging that matter, implying relativism in truth. But then you posit a "collective unconscious". Isn't this posit an attempt to nullify that relativism?

The reason I use the word 'myth' is based on the idea of the collective unconscious, as stressed by Jung, and he said that, 'There is nothing mystical about the collective unconscious.' Of course, I realise that many people reject the idea of the collective unconscious and many find Jung's writings to be a bit mystical. — Jack Cummins

Approaching this supposed collective unconscious is a difficult task, because it is conceptual, and we can flip it around to approach from one side or the inverse, finding its weakness which allows one to penetrate, annihilate and reject. The concept appears first as a myth, but that is how it appears to the individual conscious mind with an inclination toward a relativist truth. Mysticism provides us with principles whereby we can suspend the inclination of the conscious individual to judge truth or falsity in a relativist way, providing an appropriate approach to this concept. But this means that the concept is mystical because it is through a mystical approach that it makes sense. Other approaches will render the concept as a myth. And that is an example of how we might bring a myth away from the judgement of "falsity", which one might be inclined to impose, by recognizing that such a judgement is based in the relative perspective of the individual.

I do agree that there is no absolute one truth waiting to be found. — Jack Cummins

Every truth, insofar as it is true, is an absolute truth. And the one such truth is contained in the sentence before this one. What you were looking for, exactly, is worth thinking about as deeply as you can. Only you can say what that was, but imo if you peel it back, you may find what you find extremely interesting. Not least because behind the what, there's a why. I would be interested in what you dig up.

For me it is - was - the security of knowing that everything is somehow based in, grounded in, something reassuringly solid and incontrovertible, and at the same time something other, not me - but all very concrete. I imagine for most people religion fills the bill.

Science, however, shows us that there is pretty much no thing at all that can "fill the bill."

Except the thinking and being that we all do. for truth as truth there is nothing prior or primordial to truth. In very brief, it is all bootstrapped. If there is any advice that comes out of this, it would be, stop looking!

the writings of Joseph Campbell — Jack Cummins

Campbell, like Ayn Rand, may be interesting and have his moments, but he, like her, is for children, At best a practice rung on a practice ladder - to be left behind at some point.

Here's one view:
https://roguepriest.net/2011/07/04/why-i-dont-like-joseph-campbell/

And another:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/is-your-brain-culture/201012/trouble-in-myth-land-campbell-and-moyers

The articles you linked me into about Joseph Campbell are interesting, and I am sure he has his limits but I think it is going too far to say that he is for children and 'that he is a practice rung on a practice ladder.' I am wondering which writers you would place higher up the ladder?

I think that his ideas do work most strongly in understanding personal psychology in literary narratives. However, our lives are composed of story and stories within stories so in that sense are relevant for understanding truth.

I will reply to the comment you made on truth later on, after I have replied to the one on the subject by Undercover Metaphysician. I have really raised the whole question of what is truth in my thread, as well as the debate on religion vs truth, and cultural relativism but perhaps, stripping back the surfaces, perhaps the main one is what is truth?

[deleted]

I agree. And the "truth" of scientific materialism propaganda is a prime example. Humans are no more than machines and are expendable. Thankfully, there is resistance to this way of viewing life, mostly coming from religious quarters since both are fighting for the same turf. — MondoR

I perfer philosophy to religion. I like the Greek approach to achieving human excellence and I think what Confucius says about achieving human excellence has value. I have also enjoyed the Hindu explanation. But I do not like the Biblical focus on sin and evil, demons, and Satan. With Christianity, one can never know if it is Satan causing a problem or God punishing us that is the problem, rather than it all being a matter of cause and effect and the consequence of what we think, say, and do.

That said, the Bible does have wisdom and analogies that explain things in a poetic way, better than can be explained in factual statements. I want to stress the important difference between interpreting the Bible literally or abstractly. A literal interpretation of the Bible is problematic.

Absolutely. We need to be working towards an "inclusive materialism" if anything. Our science should aspire to expand its horizons. Popper's ideas about "metaphysical research programs" would be an example — Pantagruel

Do you mean research like this?

So any chunk of matter can also occupy two places at once. Physicists call this phenomenon "quantum superposition," and for decades, they have demonstrated it using small particles. But in recent years, physicists have scaled up their experiments, demonstrating quantum superposition using larger and larger particles.Oct 6, 2019

2,000 Atoms Exist in Two Places at Once in Unprecedented ... — Rafi Letzter

and this...

Can thoughts affect matter? - Quorawww.quora.com › Can-thoughts-affect-matter
Oct 3, 2015 — Can the pattern of matter we call thoughts affect matter? Yes. This is the difference of walking the walk and not just talking the talk, or more precise thinking the ... — Connor Duke

Sure, why not?

Thought affects matter and matter affects thought every moment. The event is undeniable. Just because we can't explain is itself no reason to doubt. Since every known force exhibits some form of conservation and reciprocality, thought can only be affected by matter to the exact extent that it affects matter. You get nothing for free. Not even freedom.

Approaching this supposed collective unconscious is a difficult task, because it is conceptual, and we can flip it around to approach from one side or the inverse, finding its weakness which allows one to penetrate, annihilate and reject. — Metaphysician Undercover

An anthropologist Edward T. Hall wrote of cultural consciousness and unconsciousness. He said, in our culture thinking about cannibalism is taboo and such thoughts are relegated to our subconscious. Some forums do not tolerate mysticism and I think we know there is more but we can not talk about it in some groups.

I perfer philosophy to religion. — Athena

I have no love for either institutionalized form of thinking, preferring to think for myself as to my own spiritual/philosophical approach to life. However, as institutions, both fighting over the same turf, organized religion does create a formidable opponent for science, both providing checks on the other. Science may claim the education institutions but religion has the churches, both providing pulpits for their own brand of thinking.

I have to admit that I am struggling a bit in coming up with a response to your comment because I can see the validity of what you are saying. I can see that the idea of a collective unconscious is one which can be disputed.I don't think that the idea does in itself challenge relativism outrightly. That is because it is a source of symbolism and not necessarily a source of knowledge, but this is complicated.

The reason I am struggling with my answer is that I am aware it opens up such enormous areas of debate around the whole question of truth. The problem I see with the idea of the mystic quest is that to some extent it pushes aside philosophy and the rational search for answers, but of course myth goes into the realm of symbolism. I guess that is why many philosophers are inclined to avoid mythology and mysticism. But I am inclined to think that the more people search for solid foundations, especially in physics, the less certain everything is becoming.

So, please accept my remark as tentative and feel free to get back to me because it is an area for discussion. Also, perhaps others will join in because I am really just opening up areas for debate.

I think that the main point you thought that it was worth me reflecting upon was the idea that, 'Every truth, in so far as it is true, is an absolute truth.' I guess that this makes sense in terms of how we all have our own perspective and each one's view at any given time is an absolute in the sense that it is the best that can be achieved. I think that reason I have always been uncertain is that I have always felt confronted by clashing truths.

I read an awful lot, which may be why that happens. Even as an adolescent, I spent loads of time in libraries, and many might have thought I was busy at my GCSE and A level studies, but I was reading all sorts of diverse topics and exposed my mind to all colliding perspectives. Also, I had a physics teacher who said that whatever else, he could say that he had looked at everything from all possible angles. I decided I wished to do that too.

Earlier today, I looked back and saw that someone fairly recently started a thread on the topic of whether there is any objective truth and I had never even logged into it. That was probably because on a subconscious level I am not convinced of any objective truth as such. That is why I raise the issue of cultural relativism. But, perhaps I should not keep looking too hard, but I do like to do my best to explore the different avenues of thought, ranging from the religious to the scientific, in order to develop the clearest thinking that I can.

thought can only be affected by matter to the exact extent that it affects matter. — Pantagruel

That does not make sense to me. :chin: It seems to me thought is affected by thought?

I have been thinking about this thread and the notion of nonmaterial reality. Thoughts are not material reality. Feelings are not material reality. Our spirit is a matter of how we feel and it is not material reality but strongly affects us.

Let's consider the distinction proposed by between cultural consciousness and cultural unconsciousness. There is much that we learn, in institutions like schools for example, which is culturally specific. This means that other cultures might not learn the same thing. Now we tend to associate "correct", "right", and "good", with what is proper to one's own specific culture, and this would be the person's cultural consciousness, what one's culture has given to one's conscious mind. Some will even argue that "truth" is given to the individual in this way, through teaching. But this gives us a relativism, because what is correct in one culture might be incorrect in another.

If we turn to the unconscious, we look toward a deeper level, more like instinct and intuition, and we get into the effects of genetics, and the force of hereditary attitudes. Here, in this instinctual, intuitive level, the unconscious, we might find some consistency between the various cultures. So in this way we might get beyond the relativism inherent in culture consciousness, toward a more pure truth. But do you see that it requires rejecting all the things brought to you through your culture and taught to you as correct, right, good, and even true? You might call it a mysticism, you might call it a skepticism, but it is necessary to reject all those things taught to your conscious mind, in order to avoid the relativism of distinct cultures, and start from the unconscious level, to proceed toward a truth based in the unconscious collective, what is common to us all.

That does not make sense to me. :chin: It seems to me thought is affected by thought? — Athena

Human beings are thought wrapped up in a meat blanket. Thought and matter are interacting. I think, I move matter around. It's trivially evident.

I believe that what you are saying on the idea of the unconscious on a collective basis is consistent with Jung's own thinking on the matter.
In speaking of intuition he said that, 'Mystical experience is experiences of the archetypes.' However, there are ambiguities in his thinking, and part of this may be due to the way he divides experience into four categories: bodily sensations, rational thinking, emotions and, intuition. He believes that these are balanced different from person to person, with most people having one function which is distinctly inferior.

Moving away from Jung to the idea of intuitive knowledge, we can note that some philosophers have, such as Leibniz and Descartes have believed that we have certain ideas which are innate. So, these would override relativism.

Human beings are thought wrapped up in a meat blanket. — Pantagruel

If this were me, I'd eat myself. Then where would I be?

However, there are ambiguities in his thinking, and part of this may be due to the way he divides experience into four categories: bodily sensations, rational thinking, emotions and, intuition. He believes that these are balanced different from person to person, with most people having one function which is distinctly inferior. — Jack Cummins

The problem with this approach is that we have only the consciously learned thought habits by which we can attempt to apprehend the unconscious. The conscious are add-ons, like the branches, or leaves of the tree, while the unconscious is the base, the roots. and trunk. If we turn around with the conscious, to face the unconscious, we have to be prepared to allow for a true flow of activity, from the base upward. We tend to think that the conscious mind controls the body through intentional acts, because this is the approach from the conscious mind, and this would be like the leaves thinking that they had control over the tree because they collect the sunlight. But this is to neglect the flow of power which is coming from the base, the unconscious, and to be able to apprehend it we must be willing to turn things around in our perspective.

Once we allow the conscious mind to submit in this way, we have no more intelligible principles by which to understand the flow from the unconscious, because these are the consciously developed principles which we must release. So the mystic might say that once we have successfully navigated this reversal, we learn to respect this true source of power, our endeavour is finished. However, the philosopher, as described by Plato's cave allegory is inspired to turn back around again, and proceed back to the culturally inspired conscious principles and reeducate them in relation to what has been learned from a glimpse at the true base.

Moving away from Jung to the idea of intuitive knowledge, we can note that some philosophers have, such as Leibniz and Descartes have believed that we have certain ideas which are innate. So, these would override relativism. — Jack Cummins

We have to be careful how we use "intuition", and "intuitive knowledge", because different philosophers have a different place for these terms. Aristotle describe intuitive knowledge as the highest form of knowledge. Following Plato's epistemic divisions, described at the cave allegory, Aristotle reworked the divisions, in his Nichomachean Ethics, to name the principal epistemic division as that between practical and theoretical knowledge. Within each of these divisions there is a layering, or hierarchy, each culminating with the highest form being intuition. We can see intuition in the practical sense, as the person who is extremely capable of discerning and factoring in all the variables before making a judgement for action. In the theoretical sense, we see intuition in the way that one judges theoretical principles to be compiled in the composition of hypothesis. You'll see that the two types of intuition are very similar, but are in a way inversions of each other. Practical intuition refers to how we apply theory toward action, and theoretical intuition refers to how we apply what has been learned from practice, toward theory.

I believe the next philosopher to significantly use the term "intuition" is Kant. You'll see that Kant uses it in a completely different way, which starts the trend in modern philosophy, to equate intuition with instinct, or an innate trend. For Kant intuition is something necessary for knowledge, and therefore somewhat prior to as a necessary condition for, but not actually a form of, knowledge. But we have to be careful with Kant's usage because this is how Kant puts the noumena out of reach of knowledge, by designating intuitions as a medium between the thing itself, and knowledge of the thing. It is the intuitions which are responsible for the sense appearances within the mind, and it is implied that the conscious mind has no control over the influence of intuitions in its fabrication of knowledge. When Aristotle broached the question of whether intuitive knowledge was innate or learned, he decided that it must be a combination of both. Relative to my description above, this allows that the conscious thinking mind, still has some sway over the power coming from the unconscious base, so that the conscious mind might influence one's intuitions. I believe it is necessary to maintain this aspect in the model of intuitive knowledge to account for the means by which the cultural consciousness gains control over the intuitive. That is where we find ourselves within society, our cultural training is in fact an exercise of conscious control over our innate and instinctual tendency, the intuitions. That is how relativism takes hold, and it is why the Kantian model cannot be accurate.

Human beings are thought wrapped up in a meat blanket.
— Pantagruel

If this were me, I'd eat myself. Then where would I be? — Metaphysician Undercover

We are spiritual beings having a human experience?

We are what we eat. This morning a listened to a lecture about ancient Greeks and the importance of sacrificing bulls. It seems back in the day everyone sacrificed bulls and the rationale was the meat of the animal carried its characteristics and we can gain those characteristics by eating the meat. We all want to be strong as a bull right? However, we can carry this thinking through to cannibalism and eat our dead relatives or our enemies depending on how we think this through.

However, in modern societies, you should not be thinking of this at all. :lol: I was once in a less sophisticated forum for a very short time because I mentioned cannibalism and there was an instant
and unquestioned rejection of the person who would do such an awful thing. That was kind of like hitting a hornets' nest with a stick. But we can see here a philosophical question of what substance carries the essence of our being? Is it carried in our meat? In our brain? In something else?

When Aristotle broached the question of whether intuitive knowledge was innate or learned, he decided that it must be a combination of both. Relative to my description above, this allows that the conscious thinking mind, still has some sway over the power coming from the unconscious base, so that the conscious mind might influence one's intuitions. I believe it is necessary to maintain this aspect in the model of intuitive knowledge to account for the means by which the cultural consciousness gains control over the intuitive. That is where we find ourselves within society, our cultural training is in fact an exercise of conscious control over our innate and instinctual tendency, the intuitions. That is how relativism takes hold, and it is why the Kantian model cannot be accurate. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think genetically transferred knowledge plays a role in intuition.

Memory: How We Know Things We Never Learned ...blogs.scientificamerican.com › guest-blog › genetic-me...
Jan 28, 2015 — Genetic memory, simply put, is complex abilities and actual sophisticated knowledge inherited along with other more typical and commonly ...

The PBS show "Finding Your Roots" does genetic studies and sometimes finds the person who is the subject of the show is like a previous relative. The inclination to write or to be a social reformer or play the piano seems to be passed on genetically.

I believe years of study or contemplation can also lead to intuition. We are not going to think like Einstein without doing the homework, but if we do the homework and the contemplation, one day, the answer to our question will pop into our consciousness. This is likely to happen in a dream when our conscious, controlling mind is not in control.

I especially like your explanation of culture and conscious and unconscious thinking and nurturing our ability to think outside of the box. I love Jose Arguelles's explanation of "The Mayan Factor" but also find it incomprehensible because that culture is totally foreign to me. I can not really think the thoughts of which he speaks. I am aware that my present cultural notions prevent me from thinking differently. But I am open-minded enough to do better the folks in science forms who are so rigidly culturally controlled they can not think outside the box and can be hostile in defending what they think they know.

That moves me to what you said and our present cultural problems with change and political fighting and racism that leads to killing or religious fanaticism that can also lead to killing. We can be so trapped in our beliefs that we slaves to them. This can be a good thing or a really awful thing.

Thought affects matter and matter affects thought every moment. The event is undeniable. Just because we can't explain is itself no reason to doubt. Since every known force exhibits some form of conservation and reciprocality, thought can only be affected by matter to the exact extent that it affects matter. You get nothing for free. Not even freedom. — Pantagruel

Still chewing on what you said and our notion of reality. :grin: A trinity? Mind, body, life?

Are we sure of what we think we know?

"Let us, for a moment, consider a scenario. Let us assume the galaxy to be an immense organism possessing order and consciousness of a magnitude transcending the threshold of the human imagination. Like a faint body, it consists of a complex of member star systems each coordinated by the galactic core, Hunab Ku. Cycling energy/information in clockwise and counter-clockwise directions simultaneously, the dense pulsing galactic heart emits a continuous series of signals, called by ourselves radio emissions. In actuality these radio emissions correspond to a matrix of resonance- a vast galactic field of intelligent energy whose primary on-off pulsation provides the basis for four universal wave functions; a transmitting or informational function; a radiative, or electromagnetic function; an attractive or gravitational function, and a receptive or psychoactive function." "The Mayan Factor"

Now, what if the Bible described God in those terms?

Well, our "notion of reality" isn't just an intellectual one, is it? There is an implied belief and value system behind every significant action that we do. That's why playing intellectual games seems to me particularly fatuous. What could be more important or more inclusive than our notion of reality? Not everyone has a theory of reality, but everyone enacts some core beliefs about the nature of reality when they act purposefully. Which is why pragmatics makes so much sense.

The effort to discover truth can never be silly and pointless. It is the purpose of birds to fly, horses to run, and man to think.

God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. "The Phenomenon of Man" Teilhard de Chardin

:grin:

The effort to discover truth can never be silly and pointless. — Athena

That may be true. But what qualifies one persons' actions as "an effort to discover truth" and another persons' actions as something other than that? Just saying "this is an effort to discover truth" isn't sufficient. If it is a genuine effort to discover truth, then if fulfills some standards of rational discourse or deliberation. Habermas cites the condition of being open to persuasion by good arguments, for example.

Our environment is fundamental to what we think. I am working with Joseph Campbell here. Around the world, snakes are part of people's myths. However, there is an island without snakes and the eel has to take the place of snakes.

The notion of demons comes from the east where mirages are common and around the time of Jesus this eastern understanding of demons and good and evil is popular in Rome and becomes part of Christian consciousness.

From the home of Mongols, the Mongolian Plateau, life is harsh and it is not a good place for gardening so life is wrapped around hunting and when Genghis Khan leaves the Mongolian Plateau he does not have a consciousness of agriculture. He destroys cities and kills everyone, so the land returns to nature and is good for gracing horses. Then a man in China who writes joins Genghis Khan and writes his history. The man from China has an agrarian consciousness and teaches Genghis Khan to harvest the cities instead of destroying them.

As Genghis Khan dominated wherever he went, he thought the notion of a god who cares about people was ridiculous. He had a notion of a sky god but as he saw the sky god it just assume kill pathetic humans as to tolerate their existence. Clearly, if we survived or not it was a matter of our will and skill, not the will of a god who didn't care about humans any more than the gods of Olympus did. It was the goddess of grain who the Greeks depended on because she made the grains grow. It took a while to invent a story of a male god creating humans, and that story seems to have begun with Sumerians and a story of a goddess creating humans of mud to help the river stay in its banks, and not flood and kill the goddess's plants.

Joseph would say we think the same when our environment is the same and it is interesting to me how the fearsome god of the Bible who ruled during the middle ages, became the loving and forgiving God we have today. Modern man, with a full belly, are so sure they have the right Christian thinking and they seem to think the way they understand God is the way Christians have always understood God.

So, you have literal snakes in your life? I only have symbolic ones, and I live in an overcrowded area of South London. It is so busy in Tooting that you get pushed and shoved walking down the streets.

I am sure that our environment affects our thinking, and this goes back to the whole nature and nurture debate. I did not grow up in London though. I was in Bedford, the land of John Bunyan's 'Pilgrim's Progress', so perhaps that is how I began embarking on my own philosophy pilgrimage.

I am pleased that many people are engaging in the thread because I intended it to be a debate rather than one with me dominating it. I tired myself out writing responses to comments, but I hope to write something new in it tomorrow, providing that too many snakes do not manifest themselves in my life before then.

That may be true. But what qualifies one persons' actions as "an effort to discover truth" and another persons' actions as something other than that? Just saying "this is an effort to discover truth" isn't sufficient. If it is a genuine effort to discover truth, then if fulfills some standards of rational discourse or deliberation. Habermas cites the condition of being open to persuasion by good arguments, for example. — Pantagruel

Excellent, the condition of being open to persuasion! This begins with knowing how much we do not know and never being absolutely sure of ourselves. Wisdom begins with "I don't know". Because of education for technology, as Zeus feared, we have become technologically smart, but we no longer turn to the gods and we have lost our wisdom.

My biggest problem with religion is people believing they can know God's truth and will. This problem is made worse by replacing liberal education with education for technology and that brings us to a president like Hitler and reactionary politics that have destroyed "being open to persuasion". This will destroy our democracy if the problem is not corrected before those of us who remember our democracy in a different time, have all died, and no one is left with the memory of our past democracy manifested through liberal education and when congress was much more open to persuasion.

Love :heart: , it is not my truth versus your truth. Democracy is an imitation of the gods who argued until they had a consensus on the best reasoning. Democracy is rule by reason, not authority over the people. Democracy is not control by the people who know God's truth and will. :grimace: Like the gods it is for us to reason until we have a consensus on the best reasoning, and it is our duty to speak up when we disagree with that reasoning and try to persuade others to accept our better reasoning. That is why democracy is an ongoing process, not a set of laws written by a God, and then rule by the leaders God gives us with all that there is for us to do, is to obey.

:grimace: Christianity and the Military Industrial Complex go well together, and we defended our democracy against that in two world wars, and then imitated our enemy if every significant way. Sorry for ranting but we are should not be competing against each other like Jews, Muslims, and Christians, Catholics or Protestants, atheists and Christians in a war against each other to determine truth. We discover truth by working together. :heart: :flower: