The question is really whether so-called higher states of consciousness can yield genuine metaphysical knowledge; objective truths (as opposed to subjective feelings and beliefs) about the nature of reality and the 'meaning' of human life. — Janus

How far from natural and normal can we go and still come to credible conclusions? Are the posts I write all wrong because I'm usually typing them while high on caffeine?

I agree that 'not accepting' is driven by thoughts, but it consists in a feeling; which can be shown by the fact that the same thoughts about the self might occur without the feelings of non-acceptance. — Janus

Not by "thoughts", but by thought. Not the contents of the medium, the medium itself.

Option 1: If we diagnose the source of the non-acceptance as thoughts, that suggests a psychological process where we examine all the thoughts, try to keep the good ones, dump the bad ones etc. You know, some people spends literally decades in therapy trying to dig through the endless pile of thoughts.

Option 2: If on the other hand we diagnose the source of non-acceptance as thought itself, that suggests a far more direct and efficient remedy, lower the volume of thought through simple mechanical methods.

I also agree that there are initially only only temporary solutions and that the relinquishing of attachment to the kinds of thoughts that cause tension and preoccupation must be sustained by constant attention at first, but may subsequently be established by habit. but then no "permament' solution would seem to be possible since my situation is constantly changing, even if only in subtle ways. We can get better at it just as can with say playing music; but there will always be room for improvement. — Janus

Right, no permanent solution is possible, except perhaps for uniquely talented people too rare to be relevant. I would ask, why do we expect a permanent solution to be available, why do we go looking for such a thing? What other process of the body can be permanently put in order? Why do we calmly accept that every other process of the body requires ongoing maintenance, but then expect to find some permanent perfect solution to the negative by-products of the thinking apparatus?

In the rest of your post you seem to be arguing that enhanced experiences can not deliver reliable data, that all explanations of such experiences are suspect.

That's fine with me, but why worry about it? Why not embrace the experiences for themselves, and simply discard any explanations of them, whether our own or somebody else's? If thought is the primary barrier to such experiences, isn't ANY explanation basically a step backward?

I am extremely doubtful about the veracity or even coherence of the common notion of enlightenment as some kind of esoteric, higher, objective knowledge. — Janus

I would agree that "enlightenment" is certainly not common, and that there is often considerable self delusion involved in those who explore such things, but that doesn't automatically equal such "esoteric, higher, objective knowledge" being non-existent.

My guess is that there are considerable translation obstacles involved, like trying to explain color to a blind man. What seems to typically happen is that an end of the bell curve person has some rare experience or insight, and when they try to share it with others the message is quickly turned in to a word circus, which is then memorized and repeated, losing fidelity with every re-telling. You know, like when you copy music from one cassette tape to another 34 times. By the end of that process the primary thing remaining is static.

I think it means being fully accepting of what and who you are, though; 'being comfortable in your own skin'. so to speak; and that may take a lot of work. — Janus

Or maybe not?

What is the mechanism of "not accepting"? What is "not accepting" literally made of? Thought. To the degree we turn down the volume of thought the "not accepting" goes away.

Yes, a temporary solution. But then all of life is a temporary solution. Eating, sleeping, digesting, sex, breathing, all temporary solutions requiring ongoing management. So why do we demand anything more from another mechanical operation of the body, thinking?

Maybe there's a bit more than a temporary solution? As example, if one has reliable access to food, one still has to eat, but one is not worried about it too much. If one has a reliable temporary solution to over thinking and not accepting etc, then these things still happen, but one doesn't worry it about so much, doesn't get all wrapped up in the drama to the same degree.

What typically happens in conversations on these topics is the focus is often on "enlightenment" some form of permanent solution, because that's what's glamorous and exciting etc. Ok, maybe that's possible, I wouldn't know. But why not nail down a realistic doable temporary solution strategy first, before concerning oneself with what may not even be possible?

All members should be replaced with cute red headed college coeds who think I'm a genius. I can't believe this feature STILL hasn't been implemented, even though I asked for it an entire sentence ago!!!

I agree; I do think people chase the awakening "dream" or myth for emotional reasons. I have done it myself! And there's nothing wrong with chasing things for emotional reasons, if you want to; but in this context (of philosophical discussion) if you want to say there is more to it than merely chasing it for emotional reasons then the onus is on you to provide an account of that purported "more". — Janus

Yes, I can vote for that. This is a philosophy forum so your challenge is appropriate.

I don't expect or even want to convince anyone to give up their beliefs because they can';t provide rationally supportable reasons for them, and I don't even expect (although I do want) them to admit that it is really only an emotional matter, so I will keep asking the hard questions of anyone who wants to claim anything like "objective esoteric knowledge". — Janus

I do stuff like this all the time myself. It's ultimately a largely pointless endeavor, a form of irrationality in itself, but hey, we were born to do this dance so let's do it.

BTW who is Diana Lane? Is she someone I should begin lusting after? — Janus

Who is Diane Lane? WHO IS DIANE LANE???? Death to all non-believing blasphemers! No, of course you shouldn't lust after her, she's all mine, keep your grubby little hands off of her!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Lane

But that book provided insights into Krishnamurti as a man, as distinct from Krishnamurti the teacher. — Wayfarer

Yes, if we just look at these guys (and they're almost always guys, which might be enough to make one at least a bit suspicious) as philosophers, speakers and writers instead of saints, then there is no conflict or scandal, and normal human business is to be expected and accepted.

Krishnamurti can be a bit tricky, because while he repeatedly and sincerely rebelled against any process of authority, as a person he carried himself in an authoritative kind of manner, probably because he was a dignified fellow by nature and people had been looking up to him since he was a child. It might have been a bit better if JK had slipped a lame fart joke in to his talks now and again to pop the authority bubble. :smile:

I still believe that JK was a very articulate insightful person who many will find worth investigating. I'm still intrigued by his insight that "thought is inherently divisive" to this day, 40+ years after first encountering that idea in his writing. To me, that one concept explains quite a bit of the human condition.

So, then I must conclude from the above, that these men are con artists. — Posty McPostface

Some of them clearly are, but the bigger picture seems more complicated, as is typical of all human affairs. JK and many other such teachers may be entirely sincere in feeling they have achieved some transformation and that they can communicate that to others. And they may be right to some limited degree. We don't know how many people were substantially changed by reading these books and didn't bother to start a writing career of their own, so we never know about them.

You haven't answered my question. How many awakened individuals have you met? How do you know they are awakened (assuming you have met some or at least one)? — Janus

This seems a reasonable question to me, but perhaps not one that will be effective. People chase the awakening dream for emotional reasons that are not likely to be significantly impacted by logic calculations. As example, I lust after Diane Lane. Go ahead and try and talk me out of this fantasy folly. Good luck! :smile:

I definitely learned some important things from reading Krishnamurti’s books, which became part of me, but I question the ability of his teaching to bring about the radical change that he demands. — Wayfarer

In every field of endeavor there are people with rare talent way out at the end of the bell curve. Mozart could write many books on music which might help us play better music, but such books are not likely to turn any of us in to a Mozart. Point being, if radical psychological change even exists it's likely so rare as to be irrelevant to the vast majority of us, and there's not much evidence that the rarely talented have the ability to share their gift with us. Mozart was born to be a great musician, and you can't pass that roll of the genetic dice on to someone else.

As example, as I understand the story, Krishnamurti had an affair with his best friend's wife and then blamed his friend's distress on his friend's lack of enlightenment etc. Is that radical change? Sounds more like being really stupid and very human to me.

As I see it Krishnamurti was quite insightful and very articulate. While these talents can be appreciated, they probably don't qualify as radical change.

Is radical change a poor goal? How about we start by better managing our normal nuttiness first, before we get carried away with the radical change dream? It seems to me that the radical change dream is just another fantasy becoming trip, like wanting to be rich and famous etc.

But then, on the other hand, if we remove the radical change dream, then few of these guru guys could make a living selling books etc. Maybe the radical change dream is necessary to keep such writers in the marketplace of ideas?

But what I have learned through studying writings like his, and also through meditation, is a sense of indwelling or upwelling love. And also frequent flashes of bliss. — Wayfarer

Imho, this is fundamentally a mechanical issue. Thought operates by division, so while focused on thought we feel divided. To the degree we turn down the volume of thought the experience of division is replaced by the reality of unity. It's really no more complicated than turning down the volume of your TV so you can hear what your friend is saying. The problem of course is that the shows on our mental TV can be pretty compelling, and we typically part with them reluctantly.

Looking at this as a mechanical issue tends to be unpopular with philosophers and new agers etc, but it's actually good news for the person who is serious. It's like getting a flatter stomach by doing situps. All that's required is sticking patiently with the situps over time. Serious people will stick with it, those who aren't serious won't. And not being serious may not be a bad thing, maybe it just means one doesn't really have a problem, and thus doesn't need a solution. If one is content with how one's stomach looks, why bother with situps?

One of the things your trained not to do, is either seek those states or cling to them — Wayfarer

More realistically, we can seek these states and cling to them a bit too just as we do any positive experience. But, try not to get all carried away. Hold on lightly, be grateful for what comes, and let it go when that time arrives. All things in moderation etc.

Easier said than done. I spend a LOT of time in a nearby state park where I explore the quiet quite earnestly. It's great, except, um... Now my normal suburban neighborhood seems so noisy I'm about to give up on hanging out in the yard. Barking dogs send me running back inside etc.

A sense of humor comes in quite handy in such inquiries.... :smile:

I do not know of any; but, I do know that those claiming that they are awakened are most likely not. — Posty McPostface

Yes. In fact, those of us who explore such topics are likely to be, on average, a bit nuttier than the norm because those seeking solutions of any kind are typically those in need of a solution. That's how I got here at least.

No amount of books and practices etc are likely to sweep the nuttiness away, but they can help to manage it. It's like if your whole family is fat and you were born fat too. There's unlikely to be any diet which will turn you in to Twiggy. But you can manage your weight to avoid serious problems. Those declaring themselves "awakened" or "enlightened" are typically expressing a desire, not a reality, as best I can tell. As example, if you subject their claim to any serious inspection they often fall apart, run away, and can become hysterical etc.

Regrettably, there's a great deal of hero worship in this field. As example, I once chatted with a guy online who was the lead teacher at the Krishnamurti school in Ojai California. He told me JK was just short of a God. In my mind I pictured JK coming up behind him to whack him upside the head with a rolled up newspaper. :smile:

Anyway, lots of people come to these topics because they don't like the story they have about themselves, their self image. And then they see somebody up on a stage who everyone is applauding, and they want to be that guy with that story so they start playing the role. The role is appealing, because it looks like a way to be rich and famous and adored etc, without actually having to do much of anything.

That said, life is short and sometimes tough, and if some fantasy story helps someone get from one end to the other with less pain than they would have experienced otherwise, that's not such a bad outcome. Better to be a fantasy guru than commit suicide, eh?

I know all this stuff because I am His Flatulence Sri Baba Bozo, the founder of Bozoism, the next great world religion. Now where did I put my turban??

I contacted the developers and discovered I wouldn't have direct access to the data, and that killed the sale for me. Still, I do like this forum software quite a bit, so thumbs up for the interface.

I take this to mean that there is a world of difference between understanding the theory that all is one, and experiencing the fact. — unenlightened

Yes, I think what JK is referring to is not something one understands, but something one experiences.

If true, this premise is somewhat undermined by the process of writing many books (or forum posts) on the subject. Such an prolific process suggests that what is being discussed is some complex, sophisticated, mysterious thing one has to analyze, dissect, take apart piece by piece etc. And so JK books can be quite inviting to philosopher peeps like us, as we tend to be looking for complex, sophisticated, mysterious things to analyze.

I now tend to see JK books (and similar writings) as a kind of circus act which draws us over thinkers in to the tent. The bait in the trap, so to speak. Once within the tent we may come to realize that overthinking isn't the solution, but rather the obstacle to overcome.

I credit JK with teaching me that "thought is inherently divisive" which imho is the key to understanding much about the human condition. I still find this insight philosophically interesting (see my many mentions of this in many threads) but the understanding on it's own is of limited value. What one does with that understanding seems rather more important.

More to the point, the understanding is actually unnecessary. Simple meditation techniques, walking, fishing, a thousand ordinary actions can get the job done without any understanding being involved. As example, food provides nutrition to our bodies even if we know nothing at all about the processes of digestion. It doesn't matter what we understand, it matters only whether we pick up the food and eat it. Like that.

I love the title of his blog, "Not Even Wrong". Thanks for the link.

What does Jiddu Krishnamurti mean when he said: "Truth is a pathless land"? — Posty McPostface

Yea, a Krishnamurti thread, thanks for that. It's cool to see how many of us are already interested in his work.

I think I should leave JK to explain what he meant by this. I can only report my own interpretation.

I understand "truth" to be a living thing, reality in the present moment. Religions, philosophies and ideologies typically try to capture truth in some collection of ideas, but by doing so they kill it, because truth is not an object one can possess, just as one can not capture a breeze blowing by.

At this point in my life I probably disagree with JK that there is no path. Simple mechanical exercises can train our minds to shift focus on to the present moment. Such exercises are likely more useful than doing what I did in my youth, reading every JK book 19 times in an attempt to "figure it out".

JK can be very appealing to people like us because he gives us a million things to think about. However, it's possible that thinking is not the cure, but rather the "disease". That is, thinking shifts our focus away from the present moment where truth resides. It doesn't really matter what we're thinking, thinking is thinking.

I find it quite interesting that all of JK's books put together are actually not as useful as these three simple words....

Be here now.

To me, that's what philosophy is largely about. A process of digging through vast mountains of unnecessary complexity to find the often quite simple wisdom hiding at the bottom.

Therefore, I cannot be directly perceiving the real, physical objects when I'm conscious. — Marchesk

Perhaps it would be helpful to say that the real world beyond our minds, and the symbolic world between our ears, are continually competing for our attention. The symbolic realm usually wins, which is probably why we often experience the real world as dull and boring etc.

Of course there are the negative aspects mentioned in the OP. Heck, every time I am writing here and discussing philosophical issues with people I have typically no idea who they are, I'm not playing with my children or doing something else. But have we become worse people? I'm not so sure about that. — ssu

Perhaps what you're not considering is the speed at which the Internet evolves. In it's current form, the Net may indeed not be a problem for you personally, and many others too.

But sooner or later Apple and Amazon etc will figure out how to provide you with some digital experience which you will find far more rewarding than playing with your kids. Or, perhaps this will happen when your kids are themselves parents.

It's like the drug cartels. HUGE profits will flow to whoever can create the most compelling addictive experience, so we can be assured that many very intelligent and well funded minds will be working in this direction in earnest.

Well, for one thing, the design of the Internet needs to be reconsidered. It doesn't make such sense to use such an insecure technology that hackers can bring down a nation's electric grid, for example.

As a philosophy addict, it's great that the Net gives me such easy access to all of you. And now that I have access to what I've long wanted, the ability to be nerdy all day long every day, I find I'm ever less interested in the real world of people beyond the Net. Still very interested in the natural world, but face to face people, not so much.

At my age (67) I'm not going to worry about any of this too much, but I do have concerns about some of our younger members who are probably going to spend their entire life typing with faceless strangers.

The Net might be thought of as the world's largest city. As is true with all cities, a vast range of opportunity is available, but each of us will be forgotten two minutes after we log out. We have access to everybody, but don't really belong to anybody.

It's like what happened with our relationship with the land. We used to be intimately bound to particular landscapes, one with the Earth, but thanks to the urbanization and mobility of human populations we're on the verge of forgetting that such a thing is even possible. That's a huge loss.

Here's an example of where we're headed. As soon as it's technically possible forums will be populated with bots who will give us far more of what we want in a conversation experience than human forum members will, or can. Many of us here on the forum have already largely abandoned real world people for anonymous Internet people, and before long we'll be abandoning people altogether.

As example, as you've seen I have a collection of pet topics that I want to obsess about all day long everyday. You guys can only take me part of the way there because you have your own interests. Bots will surrender themselves entirely to my interests. Bots will give me what I really want. Bots will win. Sorry guys, you're fired, well, soon to be fired. But you won't care that you're fired, because you'll have your own bots to play with.

A key problem is that human beings aren't capable of adapting to new environments at the same speed that new environments can now be created.

They are just facts of life, and railing against them is as sensible as railing against the weather. — SophistiCat

If we are powerless drones unable to think and reconsider, what are you doing on a philosophy forum??

No matter the progression of thought, isn't the premise that, you think? Do you doubt that? — BrianW

Is there a "you" that is separate from the "thinking"?

The expression "I am thinking XYZ" certainly describes the experience, but does it describe what is really happening?

Every ideology ever invented both divides itself from other ideologies, and more telling, sub-divides in to competing internal factions. The universality of this experience suggests, or perhaps proves, that the source of the division and conflict is something that we all have in common. A desire to feel superior arises from this same source.

But why do so many atheists/agnostics feel some need to disrespect the theist position? — Rank Amateur

I disrespect the atheist position too, if that helps. :smile:

I knew that sooner or later the problem of Whoopie Goldberg not having a penis would come up in this discussion and it finally did. — CarlosDiaz

:smile: :smile:

Pope Francis says he's the head of the Church, but only the head, apparently God never got around to creating the rest of him. No penis, it's a huge controversy!!!

https://sketchfab.com/models/d85d513315434eab85b82b9684488eee

But Jesus is concerned she might not have a penis...

https://sketchfab.com/models/3db382f1e1624fd09a9613f3cbc03513

Whoopie Goldberg has agreed to take over the Church....

https://sketchfab.com/models/a7daa3abb0604070a6319c1906a34e27

Yea, I think we just have a definition problem. — Rank Amateur

Well, it seems it's not just a definition problem, as it's pretty fundamental to our varied views.

When I say "The Church" above I mean the organization of the the Church, the magisterium, the teaching authority. — Rank Amateur

Understood, and a certain collection of assumptions arise from that view, which you've been expressing pretty well. I agree this is a widely held theory of what the Church is, but in my view not the reality. As example, who is it that funds the clergy, and thus the magisterium and the teaching authority etc?

That does not mean everyone who identifies them self as Catholic. The sub set of what that group believes is almost unlimited. — Rank Amateur

Yes, that's the reality. A very large diverse community, with many competing interpretations and perspectives contained within. If there was no such diversity there would be no ideological debates, and we know that there is.

By the way, God just told me that I own this thread, that I am "the Thread", so from here out anyone who doesn't agree with most of my interpretations is not really a member of this thread, but only an outside observer. And in any case, member or observer, you have no vote about anything because I own everything, and all of you are my children to be instructed by my superior wisdom. Amen.

Science was only one of the disciplines I said, grew out of religion. There was also philosophy, politics, law, economics etc... do they not address our relationship to reality? — karl stone

Which of these disciplines focus on falling in love with reality? Emotions Karl. Human emotions. Note how your list of nerd disciplines has little to say about them.

Here's an example to illustrate why this matters. This is a philosophy forum. It's about logic, right? Only on the surface. An inch below that surface this forum, any philosophy forum, is really fueled by human emotions.

Imagine that the mods removed all the screen names from the forum so that it was impossible to tell who said what, and there was no way to claim credit, establish a reputation, receive applause etc. This would be a better setup technically, logically, because removing the screen names would kill many emotional distractions in the threads. It would also kill the forum as most members would soon stop participating given the forum would no longer be a suitable vehicle for pursuing what we're really interested in, our emotional agendas.

Gotta go, more later...

At one time, religion was the best understanding we could muster - but that was overtaken in all sorts of ways. — karl stone

1) Science addresses facts about reality.

2) Religion addresses our relationship with reality.

Apples and oranges.

The intelligence of religious people is impaired by belief in something they can't know; such that the contents of the mind effectively disable the brain. The brain works better dealing with truth. It experiences cognitive dissonance less, and is able to make more dense, straightforward and closer connections. In short, the brain that models reality the closest works best. — karl stone

And yet, these people whose intelligence is supposedly impaired have dominated human culture for at least thousands of years. This consistent record of successful adaptation suggests that, generally speaking, religious people are modeling human reality pretty darn well.

As example, Catholicism dominated Western culture to a degree unimaginable today for 1,000 years, and continues to have a billion members, while few people could accurately quote anything any scientist has said, if they could even name a scientist.

Another example, the current President. Although he lies with almost every sentence, and shows every appearance of being a moron, he is President and we are not. His success at reaching his goals suggests he is modeling reality pretty darn well, at least better than his many experienced and intelligent competitors.

Your theory...

In short, the brain that models reality the closest works best. — karl stone

... is generally sound.

But you aren't applying your own theory very well when you consistently ignore the human reality.

It is the belief of the Church, that when a Pope acts authoritatively as Pope John Paul did above, he is protected from error by God , in the form of the Holy Spirit. There is direct line, between this concept and this apostolic succession that is the Authority of the Church itself. — Rank Amateur

That is the belief of SOME in the Church.

While I appreciate that you're trying not to be argumentative, the language you use suggests that you believe that traditionalist Catholics own the Church, because they say they own the Church. To me, such a notion is no more valid than me claiming that I own this thread, when in fact this thread is a collection of people of various opinion exploring topics of shared interest.

I would argue it's not even possible for anyone to own the Church ideologically, because none of us are capable of controlling what someone else will choose to believe. What the clergy actually owns in the real world is a real estate empire, a cash flow, and a pile of papers which proclaim SOME of their opinions and their claim to ownership of Catholicism. This is the equivalent of me printing out one of my posts claiming to own this thread, and then waving that paper around in the air as proof of my ownership claim.

I suspect the solution will be to accept the pedophile's para-philia and teach the pedophile how to manage their desire without having sexual contact with children. They can't give up the desire, they will have to find alternatives. — Bitter Crank

Hmm... Permanent confinement with virtual reality children?

I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful. — Rank Amateur

Based on what exactly?

I don't know, I'm clearly not objective on this, but it just doesn't pass the smell test for me. The male clergy reports that God told them that only male clergy can run the Church? What a coincidence! How incredibly convenient!

"Hey, we're not stealing the Church, God made us do it!"

Many of the men who sign up for seminary find celibacy more of a shelter from their immature and highly conflicted sexuality than a sacrifice. It is from this group that pedophiles are likely to emerge. (The number of pedophiles in the priesthood are most likely not large, but the damage that hundreds of pedophiles can do is enormous.) — Bitter Crank

As usual, a ridiculously sensible analysis from Monsignor Crank. This theory would explain why child rape has so afflicted one particular institution (a most unlikely one!) while not blaming child rape on celibacy specifically, which doesn't make sense. If true, celibacy doesn't cause child rape, it just creates an atmosphere that may attract some troubled people.

I can actually have some compassion for the pedophiles, but the people who covered it up, well...

Hey, given the great respect for tradition with Catholicism, maybe it would be a good idea to bring back burning at the stake?

A significant difference between Catholicism and protestant sects is Catholics do not believe in the concept of Sole Fide saved by faith alone. Catholics believe it is both faith and actions. — Rank Amateur

Ok, agreed. What I'm reacting to in part are thousands of Catholic websites which focus almost exclusively on ideology, with barely a mention of say, Catholic Charities.

Everybody is going to have their beliefs, that's the human condition. But the balance between faith and action seems to be way out of balance. I suspect that's because the talking of the talk is quite a bit easier than the walking of the walk. As example, I can and do write many fine sermons which provide me with the impression I'm doing something that somehow matters, when really it doesn't. But the illusion can be compelling sometimes.

As to the who is the better Catholic, ( as if there is some Catholic rating system) — Rank Amateur

Um, Catholics are constantly debating who is the real Catholic.

if your "words" are just that words they are unimportant. It your words are an expression of your beliefs, and your beliefs are ordered, that is a little better. If your words are also an action, meaning they have a purpose that is ordered, such as helping others understand the faith better - that is better still. And tying it into your point of "Des Caritas Est" Cathloics would believe it is an act of love to share the faith with others. Feeding the soul more important than feeding the body ( all that by bread alone stuff) — Rank Amateur

Excellent squaring sir! I knew you'd be up to it. :smile:

I would counter with this. The most accurate guide to what our beliefs really are is found in the actions that we take. So for example, if a parish had no ceremony and no ideology talk etc, and the only option was action, everyone would soon discover what kind of Catholic they really are. That seems a useful clarity device.

So to completely square the circle - it depends on the intent and use of your words and the intent and motivations of your wife's actions. — Rank Amateur

As to my words, and perhaps most words by most people, I cast my vote for my wife's humorous description "saving the world through blowharding". It can indeed feel like "saving the world" but "blowharding" probably gets closer to the truth. That is, we tend to be very good at self deception, and typically we are serving ourselves and not others or some higher mission. Such self deception is easy with words, especially for those of us with a knack for words. Not so easy with actions.

As example, I honestly feel most clergy sincerely believe they are "saving the world" with their sermons and writings etc, but it's probably closer to the truth that they are saving the clergy. I don't mean that cynically, or directed to clergy alone, just describing one view of the human condition.

Discussing the Philosophy of religion, is not discussing religion it is discussing philosophy. And there is nothing at all wrong with that. Not much different than discussing any other topic. — Rank Amateur

I'm not making a moral case here, but the danger in discussing philosophy of religion is that we may mistake such discussion for actual religion. That's what I see happening in most religions, not just Catholicism or Christianity.

Believing, by faith, in the precepts of a particular religion, and according ones life as such is the practice of religion. — Rank Amateur

Hmm.... Just to be argumentative, I might argue that belief is not really religion, but rather talk about religion. As example, we could compare the experience of unity with God with a description or belief about such an experience. The experience is one thing, the explanation something else.

Good discussion. I'm glad we're not yelling at each other, and credit you for much of that.

The philosophical point here is that Catholicism need not be limited to just ideology and ceremony. — Jake

Another example...

As I've mentioned my wife is an AVID wildlife rehabber, she spends hours every day working on that.

Being a nerdman philosopher guy, when I observe her total immersion in wildlife I think that what she's really connecting with is something beyond the creature she is attending to. In my theory, babies and old people are special, because whatever that special is, it's leaking over from the other side beyond the life/death boundary. This is just a theory that works for me, I make no claims other than that.

But my wife is not a philosopher, she's a person of compassion. So she doesn't feel any need to develop an ideology to go along with her wildlife experience. In my view, that doesn't matter at all, because whatever it is that is special is speaking to her in her own language. Not my language, not your language, her language.

I think what happens in most religions (not just Catholicism) is that people like you and me, philosopher/writer types, hijack the religion and try to claim ownership of it.

It's typically a sincere mistake. For people like us, philosopher types, religion is very much a philosophical business, a matter of ideology. As example, look at the religion threads on any philosophy forum. They are almost exclusively about ideology, and almost never for example, about the experience of love. So TO US religion seems to be about philosophy, ideology, because that's how we experience it. I'm having that experience right now as I type this post.

The mistake people like us typically make is in the assumption that because philosophy is the open window to religion (or anti-religion) for us, therefore philosophy is the ONLY open window, a singular "one true way", the real deal. But really philosophy/ideology is only one way to approach religion (or anti-religion) and not a very good way at that.

As example, my wife is just as smart as me (we have the same college degree) but she's simply not a philosopher or writer, but a person of compassion. She couldn't write a philosophy post to save her life. But, she walks the walk in an astounding manner which puts me to shame. I tease her by calling her a "selfish Karma hog". :smile:

I can talk the talk all day long. I'm articulate, I'm typoholic, I have a million philosophical opinions. But I don't really perform much useful service to anybody else, given that I am so busy "saving the world through blowharding" (my wife's funny description of what I do).

So, a question for you...

If my wife and I were Catholics (we are not) who would be the better Catholic?

1) the person who can talk the talk but not really walk the walk, or...

2) the person who can walk the walk but not really talk the talk?

My proposal to put the nuns in charge is just a way of saying the walkers should replace the talkers.

Now, given that I have hundreds of years of Catholic DNA running about in my brain, I know what happens next. The clever Catholic talkers will find some intelligent articulate way of escaping from the above question by squaring the circle, saying it's all really the same thing, we must do both, yada yada yada.

I respectfully reject all that. My vote is that the walkers are the real Catholics, and the talkers are just talkers.

The apostle John said, "God is love".

He didn't say, "God is a doctrine about love."

Part of the genius of Christianity is that one doesn't need to know a single thing about ideology in order to love, which makes the experience accessible to all human beings.

This is my sermon. This is the one true way! Everyone who doesn't agree is a heretic, for it clearly says in the Book Of Jake, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, or whatever it was.

Ok, it's time to do something truly revolutionary. Yes, believe it or don't, I'm going to say something nice about Catholicism!!

Here's my favorite Catholic Church, in St Augustine Florida.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nombre_de_Dios_(mission)

Here are some photos:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Nombre+de+Dios+st+augustine+photos&client=firefox-b-1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjtf6ysNHeAhXH7oMKHahtA0kQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=902&bih=442

Ok so I'm not actually that interested in the church building itself, nor do I attend services, but...

The grounds are great! The church is on a beautiful piece of property overlooking a bay which leads to the Atlantic ocean. There's a distinct atmosphere of peace throughout the park which is tangible to those who pay attention to such things. My wife loves to feed the squirrels, the critter who she spends SO MUCH time with here at home. If you bring a bag of peanuts dozens of squirrels will follow you around the park and happily eat right out of your hand.

The grounds contain a cemetery of those buried in the 1800s, and I find it philosophical to walk around reading the headstones, wondering about the life of the person they describe.

The church and park are right in the middle of town, very easily accessible on foot for anyone doing the tourist thing in St. Augustine.

The philosophical point here is that Catholicism need not be limited to just ideology and ceremony. Peace tends to descend upon my soul at this place, and I don't really care what that's called.

All really good ideas to increase the pool for the clergy, and remove some roadblocks to make it an easier road to accept - certainly could put more folks in the pews. — Rank Amateur

Putting more folks in the pews is not the ideal goal, that's the old thinking, imho. Putting more folks in the homeless shelter should be the goal. It can be a Catholic homeless shelter, that's a-ok.

There is only some conflict, if you happen to believe that the RC Church is the one true Church and the best path to your salvation – if you believe in such things. — Rank Amateur

By "RC Church" what you really mean is the clergy, because Jesus didn't prohibit any of Crank's suggestions. So, if one believes that the RC clergy knows better than Jesus, yea, then there's a conflict.

I think for better or worse, the RC Church is, in general what it is. It has undergone changes in the past, and it will undergo changes in the future. However, because of some deep beliefs, rightly or wrongly - much of what you would have the Church do – it is no longer in a position to do. Like your example - in many respects it is what it is. — Rank Amateur

Well said, and not easy to debate. And probably not worth debating. It seems a shame for such an prominent institution to continue a slide in to decline over such unimportant matters such as what gender the clergy will be. But yea, it most likely is what it is. Maybe it's wiser to let the old girl go down naturally than to keep poking her with a stick to try to keep her alive. I'd be receptive to such an argument.

What a married and an openly gay priesthood would do is greatly increase the pool of candidates. Given an enlarged pool, the church could become more selective. Given a larger priesthood, the church would become more effective. — Bitter Crank

Great points Crank. Hey, let's make the pool of candidates larger yet. Women are over 50% of the population. Thus we see the priest shortage is yet another unnecessary self inflicted wound brought upon the Church by incompetent management.

Another example of incompetent management would be that people like you with good ideas that could breathe new life in to the Church are either drummed out out of leadership positions or bored in to walking away. And so the same old stuff that has proven to lead to crisis just keeps rolling along.

On the other hand....

My wife's father is 85 and sinking in to senility. In his prime he was a force to reckon with, an architect that designed many prominent buildings in Miami. But now he forgets everything in about 10 minutes, and no longer wants to bathe. We could obviously claim that not bathing is illogical etc, but...

Does that really matter at this point? He's 85 and has his nose pressed up against the existential window. His gay husband of 50 years just died two months ago. Everything that has a beginning also has an end. So he doesn't bathe. So what? Why worry about such things now?

This might be another way to look at the Church. It's had a great run. 2,000 years. For half that time the Church dominated Western culture to a degree that we can't even imagine today. Like my wife's father, the Church has left it's imprint upon human history for both the better and the worse, as we all do. Ok, so the Church does a number of things that seem blatantly stupid and not in it's own interest. What do we expect of a 2,000 year old man? At least the clergy is still bathing, we could be happy about that. :smile:

Catholics should probably ask Protestants what Catholicism is. We are totally objective about the Catholic Church so we would be a totally reliable source of information. — Bitter Crank

This requires some clarification. Readers need to understand that Crank suffers from a medical condition called "Excessive Maturity Syndrome". Every so often he can't help himself and he blurts out something blatantly reasonable and sensible, even though this is a clear violation of forum culture. But hey, please remember folks, it's not nice to make fun of disabled people!