hi Kenhinds, thankyou and please do contribute, I am always interested in logical approaches in mysticism.

Yes I agree.
Also the western society glibly rushes over the cliff of climate change and destruction of the ecosystem like lemmings.

Although this issue was always going to be faced somewhere down the line, it could have been tackled in a less reckless way.

Forgive my interjection here. I want to point out that there is an important process which is necessary to undertake before one can make significant progress in mysticism. It is at the forefront in all mystical schools in some form or other and there is an important reason for it and many casualties along the road of people who have not performed it successfully in their quest. It is the subjugation of the ego.

Now I agree it can theoretically be achieved in the heroic sense, but this is a high wire act while wearing a blindfold and I am not aware that it has been achieved by anyone. I have tread this wire on ocassion, but only in controlled circumstances. The romantic cannot go forth without taking their body with them and the body is a precisely developed instrument, unless the ego respects this the ego is working against the processes the body is engaged in.

Normally the aspirant goes through a period of purification and the exercising and development of humility in order to tame the ego. Once it is tamed and in a sense wearing the correct harness, it can again exercise its passions. Without the metaphorical harness, it is blindfolded, disfunctional, without sight and will injure itself, it's goal and its environment.

In mysticism there is a process and realisation that one becomes God. What this means and refers to is a state of repose(on multiple levels) in the aspirant whereby one realises one's role in the world as a creative agent, one's alignment in terms goals or motivations with what one estimates is the will of God, and ones' independence, or freedom from the animal, or egotistical desires and conceit. This could also be described in terms of the person reaching a state of purification, in which one is prepared, or ready for a union with God, or a bride of God.

There are many differing schools, routes and interetations of this process, but essentially it is the same process with the same goal. Also I have greatly simplified(perhaps over simplified) it in my description.

There is also the approach in which God is taken out of the equation, again the goal is the same, but simply lacks the component of reverence. The goal is the same in that the constructive or benevolent role of humanity in the biosphere is equivalent in terms of one's actions in the physical world.

I watched a nature programme recently in which tapping sounds had been detected being made by aphids. A kind of morse code, or something more like a language perhaps.

It is curious how there seems to be an apparatus, or means within us to follow this path, to seek this end. Or is it just the human mind which once developed found solace in such areas of contemplation. The ape that thought of God, condemning all who followed to a longing for more, for escape.

Semiosis2, Topos2, I like the sense of depth, Inspired

I don't see this. A symphony: that can be present to us as a whole. A drama. A novel. The ways of remembering and anticipating presented to us in novels, from Flaubert to Toni Morrison. I suppose I disagree with the distinction you make in the op:

Yes I see this and don't disagree, however we can distinguish the brief moment of passing time, it's a reality and it is also clear that the moment we experienced a couple of seconds ago has past, it ceases to pass and is frozen as a historical record, perhaps facilitated by our memories.

I collect antiques, these antiques are present with me know in that moment, they also bear the marks of a checkered past, which they bring with them. It is by analogy like the way the light from a lighthouse swings around lighting the horizon in a great arc. This moment containing all the universe we experience is contained in that beam of light, of illumination. But surely our experience of this beam of light, of nowness, is a restricted experience, one dictated by the material universe that we find ourselves in. Like a two dimensional being not being able to experience the three dimensional reality of a piece of paper but confined to that two dimensional surface.

There might well be other beams of light (now) out there, indeed many, inhabiting the same space, external to our spacetime. They might be as pages in a book in another dimension in an eternity of time, moments.

Biology is history, it seems rich enough to me to be the foundation of 'fundamental parts of our being', although I don't mean we can explain culture from biology. From biological beginnings we can imagine time as Proust or Hawking or Shostakovich imagines time: once we do this imagining, it's available to us at any given, ahm, moment, isn't it?

Yes, I don't disagree (this is though an explorative exercise). What you describe here is what I suggested, a full or pregnant moment, nowness, generated by our bodies, our brain, our mind, a simulation. It implies a minutely brief moment of time passing with scientific precision on the atomic scale, on the nano scale.

The alternative surely, is a very brief present though, with any sense of a moment of a longer duration, being some kind of simulation performed by our minds, or brain.

Presentism might be a good place to start, but what I've seen of it it may be a bit clunky. The jist is the same I think.

Thankyou, very evocative. I do think that this subject may be beyond us in a rational sense. But I expect eventually there will be a science which will become to understand such things.

I am thinking of the reality or truth of the situation we find ourselves in, so this is more of an exploration of that or what we can, or can't, say about it. Rather than a constructed argument. I can try to define the terms, but I am very busy today, it will have to be later.

So time is like a one-way street? We travel what's already there

I don't know, as I see it the travelling through time is part of the world we find ourselves in, an aspect of the spacetime. So in a sense time, the temporal, may be a quality of a domain or realm found in eternity, or manifest in some way. But when we are not present in a realm, time might just be a now, with no travelling. Perhaps some kind of transcendent state.

Yes, but only in a relation or reference to the temporal world we are living in. I don't see a strict distinction between the eternal and the temporal, rather that the temporal is entertained by the eternal, a construct, rather like the sensible world is a construct.

Thankyou for your input on this, but rather than derail the thread I have started another thread about the eternal moment and would welcome your input. As I would like to explore this further.

Do you understand that the present exists as a boundary between the future and the past? But since we are existing in the present, yet still sensing things in the past, then don't you think that we are also in some way experiencing the future as well? Is your mind not in the future, all the time and this is what accounts for awareness? Your mind prepares you for what may occur in the distant future, as well as what is imminent and possible, in the immediate future.

Interesting, I don't generally see it this way, rather I consider the eternal moment, rather than a narrow boundary. That we experience a narrow present due to restrictions imposed on us due to incarnation in the place in which we dwell. The details of our dwelling place I don't take a lot of interest in, as the science to understand it has not been done yet. Yes I do think we are experiencing the future in the present, along with the past and that my mind is preparing me for what may occur.

So the point is, that you are not sensing the future at all, yet you know an awful lot about the future. Where does this information concerning the future come from if not from the future itself, just like information about the past comes from the past? So your mind must actually be in the future to be receiving information from the future, in order that you can know about the future.

Yes, but as I say, this all happens in the moment, the future and the past are in some sense present in the moment and this is where a holism of being occurs.

You might wonder, if my mind is in the future, why can't I see, touch, or otherwise sense, the future objects. But that would be impossible, because sensible objects don't exist prior to the present, they only come into existence as time passes, at the present. It must be the case that sensible objects only come into existence at the present, because human beings have the capacity to make random changes to sensible objects at any moment of the present. So your mind is actually in the future, and it can't see any physical objects there, because they don't exist there, but your mind has the capacity to move and change physical objects as they come into being at the present, because it is prior to them, in the future.

I am not sure of the extent that you consider the momentary generation and dissolution of the objects of sensory experience. Or that they have some kind of longevity?
For me these objects are in a sense eternally present with me in the moment.

Art with a capital A is what was regarded as the loftiest kind of artistic appreciation by the artistic establishment, such as the Royal Society of Artists. This was principally with reference to painting and sculpture, with a pinnacle in the area of oil paint, bronze or marble.

It is now a rather outdated distinction following the rise of modern and post modern art and the creative arts. So now all forms of artistic expression are equal. Well it's supposed to be equal, but it isn't, rather it has been replaced by another establishment which embraces post modern art etc and the creative arts, but still picks and chooses a new high art by predudice of various kinds.

Anyway, the distinction is rather meaningless now, other than in reference to historical art and periods.

Oh I forgot to mention that in the art and antique market Fine Art is high quality, in terms of artistic and creative appraisal, works of monetary value.

For me music is effective in enhancing the emotions, or for setting a mood. For example while cooking, driving, painting, I will put on a piece of music which I played over and over during a meaningful point in my life and the mood, or feeling will be evoked. Yesterday I heard a piece of music on the radio which I haven't heard for many years, it marked an important emotional event in my childhood, the experience flooded back even before my mind realised what was going on. It was as though time had stood still.

This is an important piece of music for me Allegri Miserere, performed by Tallis Scholars.

http://youtu.be/YDOENZediM8

The singularity hypothesis is pretty shaky these days. Likewise an existing infinity. But I agree we cannot claim that the universe is not eternal, certainly in the absence of its secrets.

Regarding a personal God, the case seems to rest more on establishing an eternal, supernatural, uncaused origin. I agree it is quite a leap to end up with a personal thinking God, or the like.

But there are other theories which support such a thing, more directly.

Regarding first cause, I think this can only be considered in abstraction, as in application to the universe, the origin might well not make sense to us, be incomprehensible, or imperceptible.

It is reasonable to consider that the universe is not eternal, we can see around us that the known universe began to exist. I know that this a vague and can't be proven either way. Perhaps the argument could be refined to "the known universe", "our world" or something.

Anyway it is reasonable to group the universe in with things which began to exist.

Regarding having a cause, likewise all we can detect has a cause, although it can't be proven.

Regarding the "agent causation" of a god, yes it is taking the rational on to thin ice, it is a quite rational conclusion in other circumstances. In this case though it only hinges on the conclusion of a first cause, which might not require agent causation, or a mind.

I can't see the contradiction though.

Ok, I've yet to see your refutation of the original though, i.e. "All things that begin to exist have a cause"

Eternal things don't begin to exist, but do(perhaps) exist.

How is something that comes to us in the future, from some other source (Presuming that you don't assume that all things that exist to us are in the past)?

"For example?"

Anything eternal.

"Actually, the problem was with the claim "all things have a beginning".

Where is that claim in the Kalam cosmological argument?

"the cosmologists argument fails"

Is your reason for the failure that the argument says all things that exist have a cause, which contradicts the conclusion that an uncaused cause exists?


If so, this is a misunderstanding, the argument is about things which begin to exist. So there may be things in existence, which did not begin to exist, but do exist.

"Therefore, the cosmological argument refutes itself"


God is not a thing, but rather something supernatural.

"All concepts of God are false because, if there is a God, its true nature would be inconceivable to us puny mortals. Hence all concepts of God are idolatrous, which is why the ancient Hebrews started to lose the plot when they made their rules against idolatry, echoed by the Protestant iconoclasts of the Reformation. They were just switching one form of idolatry for another, without realizing it."

I agree, one should realise that our externally orientated mind cannot find, or describe God(although it can be described through esoteric systems). The mystic finds and knows God internally. The conceptual tools are different and hinge around the realisation of self, or being, as in some way in touch with God naturally, absent the externally orientated mind.

"uncaused" refers to a different sense of "cause" from what "cause" refers to."

Quite, how far down this path does philosophy tread? And presumably theology or mysticism carries the baton further?

My basic point is that the cause, or origin is not accessible to us intellectually and like you say "uncaused" is inapplicable. I do also consider that there may be a true uncaused cause, but that it would be way way beyond our humble imaginings. While God in the sense of the origin of our world need not be uncaused in this sense, but just external to our spacetime and spiritual realm(what we normally regard as existing).

"
Phenomena exist - what 'exists' is what stands apart, what begins and ends, every particular thing, every particular being. They all exist. The uncaused cause does not exist."

It isn't that simple though. We don't actually know what exists, or what it means for something to exist, or what existence is, all we've got is our experience of being in some sort of existence, something which we find on the occasion of our birth, again something not understood(in terms of the origin of our being).

Thus to say "the uncaused cause does not exist" is little more than Chitta Chatta in our heads. We don't know what an uncaused cause is, if it could exist, if there is anything which falls outside of our category of existing*, while still impinging in some way on our existing, or not. We don't have a clue how we got here, where we are, what is going on, or if there are any necessary causes that we can conceive of, or know of. Even if we can work out what is logically most likely to be the case we might be mistaken, or the reality might be odd and seemingly illogical.


*our concept of something existing, what it means to exist, is subject to human frailty and may be a pale reflection, or derivative of the reality out there. It could well be wrong headed, deluded, topsy turvy, inside out.

I agree with you and the rationale, but what does it prove? Does it prove the existence of God, an uncaused cause, or that from the human perspective there must be an uncaused cause at the beginning of our known causal existence?

Indeed, is it even addressing existence atall, rather the concept of existence? A concept subject to human frailty.

I agree LEM is not applicable here. Either existents had a cause, or they didn't, there is no half way house. However as I have pointed out, philosophy is unequipped to address the issue to begin with. More so, there is the danger that philosophers might become of the opinion that they are addressing it in developing their complex theories, thus to become deluded. Even while steadfastly employing the tools of logic.

PSR?

Well, you've really whipped up a hornets nest there.

I'm not going to get stuck in on that one other than to point out that ever since the development of intellect in early humanity competing power structures have dominated human society. Also that our current decadent and chaotic age is primarily, as you say, a result of the breaking of strong, or brutal power structures, in favour of the more enlightened ideal, something which requires the cooperation of the masses, hence our problem.

Anyway, shall we get back on topic, radical Gods?

I am withy Marty on this one, although I wouldn't put such a strong emphasis on ethics.

"The issue with reincarnation in particular is that it is doubly taboo. Once because it was anathematised by the Church in about the 4th century, and again by science because it seems to undermine materialism"

Yes, folk could end up thinking of the world as little more than a dream, or a pool of water, that the soul occassionally dips its toe into. Rather the the totality of existence, perish the thought.

@Marty,

I like your radical God, might I say a transcendent God, perhaps. But I would not only elevate ethics to that plain, but every experiential concern of humanity*. So in a sense everything about our(and the experience of other beings in the biosphere) experience can be seen as an imperfect reflection/embodiment of the nature of God, or the divine. Likewise our "spacetime" can be viewed as a dim reflection of eternity, embodied in a causal chain. While the divine realm the cosmological argument is considering, in the person of God, is forever beyond the reach of the very tool employed to address it, namely logic.

Hence your "leap of faith".

*By experiential concern of humanity, I am referring to everything that is, or is an aspect of experience, or what can be conceptually generated and understood in the human mind.

The weakness of the argument is that it presumes to tackle the conundrum of first cause using logic. Logic (and the understanding it produces) is a product of a causal chain and therefore blind to that outside the chain.

I have encountered a few threads which try to do this with the various conundrums we face philosophically. They all seem to chase their own tail within the chain.

Perhaps it is time for philosophers to try thinking outside the box (chain) a little.

Transcendental unity might be the same as the being in/of us, now at this moment. That being does appear to be undifferentiated, if one considers it absent the trappings of the incarnation we find ourselves in.

From my perspective unitary existence is both here and there (by there I mean in that unified existence), both something as what we experience in this moment and something consummately unified, without any difference between the two, or the experience thereof.

Or in other words if one were to experience it, nothing would have changed, other perhaps from the mirage before our eyes.

It's on the Norfolk broads, in the UK. I paint local landscapes of East Anglia, there is a strong tradition and interest in the landscape and art of this region.

Yes I know what physicists have worked out. But that's besides the point, I am not questioning the scientific view of the universe. I'm pointing out that philosophically we cannot determine if, or not, our(humanity's) perception of the universe might be the result of a delusional state* and as such the perception of the finite might be a delusional mirage, or an artificial construct in a more complex and subtle reality inhabited by God like beings, or something else inconceivable to us.

This being the case we can't with certainty know what finite entails, or that there is anything finite external to our perception. It's worse than this regarding infinity, because it is entirely a figment of the human imagination.

* I am working from the observation that the only thing we can know with any certainty is that we have being and experience and that all else is secondary to this fact.

"If the universe is finite, then what's outside it? What does it expand into?"

You might be in a state of delusion, or an artificial construct in a more subtle reality etc.