Religion, like poetry, in its own unique ways can be transformative; it cannot be informative; to think it can is a naive mistake. Those who think religion can be informative are fundamentalist; the worst scourge our society faces. That seems perfectly obvious to me and I can only hope that maybe one day you'll get it. — Janus

Are you saying that you believe that in all the reams of religious material which exists throughout the world, there is absolutely no information there? Have you read it all to confirm this, or is this just some prejudice of yours, moving your hands and writing this for you?

If it is not obscuritanist, then you ought be able to tell us what it is... — Banno

I could explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Which religion and which gods are you talking about? Should they all be taken literally?

I could explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. — Wayfarer

:grin:

And this is not obscuritan...

Are you saying that you believe that in all the reams of religious material which exists throughout the world, there is absolutely no information there? Have you read it all to confirm this, or is this just some prejudice of yours, moving your hands and writing this for you? — Metaphysician Undercover

Give me an example of some information that comes exclusively from a religious text. (And by 'information' I'm not talking about being informed about what was believed historically and so on, I'm specifically thinking about information about the nature of the world).

I could explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. — Wayfarer

An explanation will do, I'll take care of the "understanding" part.

Give me an example of some information that comes exclusively from a religious text. (And by 'information' I'm not talking about being informed about what was believed historically and so on, I'm specifically thinking about information about the nature of the world). — Janus

Why do you now attempt to qualify "information" with "exclusively from a religious text", and, "about the nature of the world". What you said was an unqualified, "it cannot be informative".

How is one to know whether the information derived from a text is exclusive to that text.? And, wouldn't the fact that the same information is in another text serve to corroborate, therefore enhance the value of that information? And what's with excluding what was believed historically, from being a fact about the nature of the world? Is the history of belief not a part of your world?

What I'm interested in is 'higher consciousness', which actually has a wiki entry - not brilliant, but still. But it is nothing at all like:



which is what I think you think I mean. But then, if that kind of thinking circumscribes the whole of what is called 'religion' then obviously we're at an impasse.

But if you agree

Physicalism perhaps holds that the best description of how things are is to be found in physics. Neither Wayfarer nor I would agree with that - I doubt many here would. Imagine a physical description of a tennis match. — Banno

then, what are the alternatives? If a materialist ontology is insufficient, then what alterntives are there?

I'm not a scholar of Augustine's works, but I've yet to read anything that he wrote about philosophy that I would consider nonsense. — Wayfarer

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell."

Poor old jgill. — Banno

Look upon my Icon and tremble, all ye of TPF !!

What I'm interested in is 'higher consciousness', which actually has a wiki entry - not brilliant — Wayfarer

Jesus, that really is a slender entry - I wonder why that is? Whole bookshops are devoted to the perennial philosophy and the quest to achieve higher consciousness and only this on wiki! It was all certainly a part of my life 30 years ago when I first encountered Gurdjieff, Watts, Krishnamurti, Madam Blavatsky, etc.

Seems to me this entire discussion, whether it be about higher consciousness or the miracles of Jesus, comes back down to what we think we can reasonably say about reality. One way or another we end up arguing over the basic building blocks of ontology and metaphysics and the risks inherent in certain views.

...which is what I think you think I mean. — Wayfarer

I guess it is easier for you to pretend I've no idea of that of which you speak; you don't have to pay attention to me.

I have experience with Transcendental and Samatha meditation. I've attended sessions with various Buddhist and Hindu teachers, and chanted the Names of the Lord. I've even sat in on seanmháthair performing the joyful mysteries - truly terrifying. Your desire for a quick path to enlightenment is not entirely foreign to me.

My experience has been that folk are too quick to claim knowledge of the transcendent, of higher consciousness, of magic. The saying inevitably detracts from the doing.

I just had a pizza with tomato sauce, mushroom, tarragon, feta and kalamata, on the verandah during a thunderstorm. Sublime.

Of course, if a Wiki article offends you, you ought fix it. I'm working on Philosophical Investigations.

Seems to me this entire discussion, whether it be about higher consciousness or the miracles of Jesus, comes back down to what we think we can reasonably say about reality. — Tom Storm

As I said - I think physicalism is the default for the educated, secular intelligentsia. It is what remains, when the superstious babble of religion has been taken away, often unstated but nearly always presumed. Most of my real-world friends probably believe that to be true, but it's something I wouldn't discuss in that context. That's what forums are for.

My experience has been that folk are too quick to claim knowledge of the transcendent, of higher consciousness, of magic. The saying inevitably detracts from the doing. — Banno

You've completely won me over now, Banno. All is forgiven. :up: I might work on that article, it could help.

Ah, you are in the thrall of the Devil! It starts to make sense...

What I had said that you responded to was this:

Religion, like poetry, in its own unique ways can be transformative; it cannot be informative; to think it can is a naive mistake. — Janus

If you think religious texts can be informative, give us an example. And of course the fact that people presumably believed what is written in religious texts is not an example of being informative in the terms I am asking for.

My experience has been that folk are too quick to claim knowledge of the transcendent, — Banno

The fiery illumination of the transcendental breakthrough-breakdown is ample to unsaddle our senses. A potent, dizzying, total reframing of the parameters of the real can ruthlessly hoodwink the initiate, already seeking the power and comfort of knowledge, into receiving an experience as an epistemic revelation.

Not a wise move, a move green seekers make in neurotic pursuit of glory.*


*See Karen Horney on the link between neurosis and glory.

If you think religious texts can be informative, give us an example. — Janus

This bit from Revelation:

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.


- in the context of an existential reading of the book of Revelation, where the old earth is understood to be the old, purblind self (beautifully destroyed) and the new earth is taken to be the self recreated.

But yeah, just incredible poetry. Poetry not accessible to folks who haven't experienced this sort of rebirth of self.

Compare what Nietzsche says about overcoming, also informative.

Is it informative or thought-provoking?

Are new thoughts new information?

Probably have to look at what we mean by 'information' here.


1. facts provided or learned about something or someone.

2. what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
"genetically transmitted information"

https://www.google.com/search?q=information&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS982US982&oq=information&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i67j46i67i199i465j0i67i131i433j0i67i433j0i20i263i512j69i61l2.2784j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Or something different.

informative is a thing that gives me knowledge of facts and events which I had no knowledge of previous to the giving of information. So to say that someone sits on the right of the Lord (in so many other words) is informative only for the time when one first encounters this passage in the Holy Books. After the first reading it is no longer informative.

In this sense, the Holiest of Books or the Most Exalted Holy Book is only informative to a point. After that it's trite repetition of knowledge one assumes to be true.

Why am I talking about this even in the first place? Because information that is given on something which something can't be CHECKED to be true is at best iffy. I mean, even at its best, is worse than iffy. It is complete nonsense. If you claim that X is true, then gimme some glimpse of evidence for it. Otherwise it's fantasy, not even fiction, but stream of consciousness-type wishful thinking, that some like to "own" because in their minds it gives them a special status... a status that has the french benefits of being in the "in-group", the literati, the initiati, the first causati, the dualati, the gelati, the assumotati.

Not in the sense I mean. By information I mean 'definitive and demonstrable' in some sense. So observation of the natural world gives us information. And testable theories do also (even if they turn out to be incorrect). The closest thing in religious texts to information I can think of would be instructions regarding practice. Genesis, the story of the Flood, the Good Samaritan, etc., don't give us any demonstrable information. We don't know for sure if Jesus walked on water, raised Lazarus from the dead or was resurrected.

The Buddhist ideas of rebirth and karma are not information in the sense I meant, because we have no way to test them.

Not to forget the qualiati, the apprehendati, the comprehendati, the offendati, the reprehendati, the crogantiotati, the KrugerMichaeliati, the Infinitati, the finnugritati, the ramitati.

You left out the verifati.

Oops, and not to forget the Infinitati, and the finnugritati. I almost forgot them, or maybe totally forgot them. But we must remember not to forgatitati them.

Oh, Crap. The verifati. I forgottati. Remembretati ti verifatty!

I might take issue with your notion of information but if that kind of information is what you mean the challenge is thornier.

And testable theories do also (even if they turn out to be incorrect). — Janus

Psychology is aplenty with testable theories. (Plenty of the demonstrable; and in analytic behaviorism plenty of the definitive.) Let's pretend there's a branch of psychology called the Psychology of Overcoming. There kind of is: they call it positive psychology and it has its roots in Maslow's research on what to his view were extremely healthy minds. Minds with clarity, zest, inspiration, generosity, a deeply connected sense of life - and access to what Maslow called the 'peak experience.' An existential reading of Revelation reveals a kind of postulate of the Psychology of Overcoming or tidbit for the annals of positive psychology: If you overcome - whatever obstacle stands in the way of your (intellectual, artistic, emotional, etc.) growth - your mind will feel like it's on god's throne with god. There's no question this experience is possible however unsustainable to the typical sentience.

Revelation to my view was written in the peak state and conveys information about how to achieve the peak state - the state Maslow described 2000 or so years on.

The Buddhist ideas of rebirth and karma are not information in the sense I meant — Janus

which is strictly positivist. 'Positivism - a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism.'

which is strictly positivist. — Wayfarer

And by force de tour, anything positivist has a negative twist.

Ah, the 'labelmeister' strikes again. Dismission by labeling; so much easier than providing a counter argument. Also note, that I haven't said that non-informative kinds of ideas have no value, so no, not positivist at all. Wittgenstein also held that metaphysical ideas are "senseless", but he would not have said they lack any value.