We can define more or less everything, except "physical" and "mental"? Two of the most fundamental concepts?

I acknowledge that the more fundamental the concept, the harder to define. But I think that difficulty warrants the effort to make the attempt. So I disagree with you because you seem to be saying that it's not worth attempting to define the most difficult things to define. Maybe at this point I'm just nit-picking. I'm exploring, just like you are.

But why not the experience of the world itself?

That clarifies things. So what do you think we can define, then?

I think I somewhat agree; what you're saying is mostly what I mean by generative. I just like that word better because it seems more elegant. But I can understand why Kant's terms could be more useful.

But again, this state of affairs doesn't rule out the possibility of knowledge of the world in itself.

What is misguided is the debate, since it obviously cannot give a coherent account of its terms (i.e. the physical and the mental). — Πετροκότσυφας

As far as I can see, if defining the mental or the physical will always be circular, then I'm not sure what we can define, since the most immediate human experience is the mental, and then the physical. I'm curious what you're getting at here; are you just trying to say that we can't define anything?

But, if, for us there is a world of things in themselves as they are in themselves that we cannot know, and a world of things in themselves as they appear to us, then for us there are (epistemologically speaking) two worlds. But this does not necessarily lead to the conclusion, and thus should not lead us to conclude, that there are, ontologically speaking, two worlds. — Janus

So in this case, knowledge of the two worlds is impossible, but it doesn't mean they don't exist?

So defining "physical" is misguided because it suggests dualism? I assume you have a different reason to deny dualism, then? Otherwise, if no definition of physical can be given, I would assume that would open up the possibility for dualism.

So what's a definition of physical that isn't circular?

I think that's actually an argument against materialism, though. What other definition can even be given?

I said hard dualism; my understanding is that's a Kantian dualism where the two can never interact, but correct me if I'm wrong. But I'm saying a "soft" dualism could exist where the two interact; oil and water poured into the same glass will interact, although they'll never congeal. But the two will affect change in one another.

I don't necessarily even subscribe to that, but I think it's plausible. What makes more sense to me is a concept that transcends the dualism/monism distinction, which I think of as generative; spirit giving stillborn birth to the physical world. I've talked about that before.

If one wants to say that there are non-physical things; would this necessarily imply dualism? — Janus

I don't think so. The problem for me is that the dualism/monism distinction is unessisary; it's an illusion. This actually relates somewhat to the thread I just started; the idea that there are non-physical things doesn't automatically assume hard dualism; there's no reason to assume that physical reality and a non-physical reality can never interact. A two dimensional drawing is apprehended in three dimensional space, within time. There's no reason to assume that the chain of apprehension stops there. As to whether a higher dimension would be physical and scientifically observable, my knowledge stops there, but I can imagine the strict lines of dualism/monism becoming blurred if science ever reaches out further than that. I also don't discount the possibility of something higher reaching down instead. It seems totally plausible to me.

(Y)

Quantity time; the 6th love language, along with taking away gifts and words of defamation.

TPF politics are riveting — Akanthinos

They really are; I can never bring myself to look away.

Retard mid-waste my cowering caravans— — T Clark

What a delicious line.

It is a problem if you are trying to have a discussion with someone and they keep throwing the word or the idea of "subjectivity" as a way to keep the discussion indiscussible — Perdidi Corpus

Subjectivity just means that you, the subject, are experiencing the world from your singular perspective, and your singular experience is how you then apprehend the abstract concepts of subjective and objective. So subjectivity as such is always primary because all abstract concepts (the stuff of objectivity) only obtain within the subjectivity of your experience. So subjectivity is primary, objectivity is secondary, but only within experience, which is the only mode by which we can measure the concepts. From there, we can only use our imaginations and imagine that objectivity could possibly be primary, but we can't use logic to deduce that.

I don't have secrets - except business ones :P — Agustino

Haven't you shared all of those on here by now?

I revisited this jam of mine today, and figured I'd share it. Probably my favorite song arrangement I've done; not necessarily the best song I've written.

https://matthewanderson.bandcamp.com/track/our-bones

But the emphasis on ‘right belief’ v ‘heresy’ and on ‘saved’ vs ‘damned’ has forced Western culture into this deep dichotomy - with or against. I really think that came to a head with Calvin. — Wayfarer

Absolutely; I agree, and I'm pretty sure I've argued that here more than once.

The Enlightenment was born out of ‘anything but that’ - you see it here every day. — Wayfarer

Yeah, I guess so. But I don't know if that's unique; I wonder if anywhere else in history, a similar attitude was assumed, and an important historical movement was then made.

American Protestantism, on the other side, was born out of wiping the slate clean and practicing anew as Christ would have taught (albeit having abandoned the Western mystical tradition to their detriment, in my view). — Wayfarer

Well, yes, they thought they were doing that, American protestants. But, from the start, revivalism was coached in the language of "sinners in the hands of an angry god", was it not? But ironically, now in 2017, American protestantism is anything but hell and brimstone; (or, only in it's most extreme fundamental states). American protestantism in the US is largely pretty lukewarm.

Interesting. Growing up in the 90's in the Midwest of the US, in the church, I was taught to "read my bible and pray every day". And I did, actually. As a child growing into adulthood, though, those practices became toxic, not helpful. And not because of the nature of those practices themselves, but because of how I interfaced with them. It's hard to go back now, given the backstory.

I do often wonder if Buddhism and Christianity are two instances of the same thing, and I have doubts about that. — Wayfarer

I wonder that about religions in general as well.

I think the dimension of ‘praxis’ is rather missing from the modern conversation on religion. — Wayfarer

I'm not sure if it's missing; "read your bible and pray every day", "practice yoga"...however many times a week millennial women in the West practice yoga. I think the issue is applying oneself to the practice for a specifically mystical purpose (I refrain from saying spiritual because of the connotation of that word now adays). The difference seems to be between a practice in which one is attempting to gain something out of the practice for the sake of one's place in the world (to be a better Christian, a better member of the Church here and now; to be more in tune with one's body and to maintain a healthy body), vs. a spiritual practice that moves only outward; that moves towards the divine, and the divine only. That's what I'm getting from Underhill so far, and it resonates deeply (uncomfortably so), but I have no idea how to apply it yet.

There is a modern Zen koan that I always liked, I can’t find it again now, but it went something like this: new Zen student has first experience of Satori, and with great enthusiasm has Dokusan (interview) with teacher, asking in effect ‘now what?’ To which the answer was something like: ‘apply with broad, even strokes, allowing time to dry between coats.’ (gong sound.) — Wayfarer

I assume a teacher is required, or no? I could probably find one in NYC, but I'm not sure I'm committed enough. I'm also horribly undisciplined and philosophically all over the place at this point. But I've been wanting to develop some sort of spiritual practice; right now, reading Underhill's "Mysticism" is providing a good base, if nothing else.

Btw, who of the mystics do you admire?

I could see that working, but could also see it as turning into one cyclical mind game. Has it worked for you?

I try to meditate but am hopeless at it. I am better at chanting, which I find quite helpful. I also sing in more than one choir, which I find spiritual in a way that is probably only comprehensive to people that have sung in an enthusiastic choir. — andrewk

I haven't had much success with meditation either, but I want to keep trying. I've had some small successes, actually. Singing in an enthusiastic choir is amazing! I haven't done that in years. I still write and record my own songs that include vocals, and sometimes include layers of harmony. Not the same, and not as meditative as singing with others, but still "spiritual", in my book. Singing in general, I think, is deeply spiritual.

I didn't mean Eros. — andrewk

Neither did I. I meant romantic in the classical sense; not the erotic sense.

I think the most common manifestation of something approaching unconditional love is that of a parent for a child (not all parents though). And yes, it can be brutal, especially when the child chooses a path that is self-destructive, or becomes hostile to the parent. — andrewk

Yes, but that's also not what I meant by brutal; I don't mean the brutality of being a parent who watches their child spiral into a terrible life; I mean the brutality of actual self-sacrifice. Which, again, is nearly non-existent in this world. Which again underlines my point.

Did he mean eternity when he said "the end", or nothingness? It's an important distinction.

If eternity, then no, all seriousness (assuming that means profound philosophical notions, the gravity of the human condition, etc?) would not be done away with; they would be subsumed and brought to fruition through the outbreak of the finite into the infinite, into eternity, regardless of the actions of individuals. Maybe?

Or, if nothingness, then...well, nothingness.

And what about silliness, by the way?

Eh? — Thorongil

Oh, don't be so pedantic. :P

This very much depends on the sort of God you have in mind. The Christian God, whom Buxte has spoken of, is thought to be most fully revealed in the person of Christ, — Thorongil

That was the God you seemed to have in mind, so that was the sort of God I was referring to. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Tolle, or Meister? — andrewk

Meister

Well I think I have a spiritual disposition — andrewk

Gotcha, forgive me for assuming. What does a spiritual disposition entail for you?

But I don't see why a non-spiritual person couldn't subscribe to the 'love is unconditional' notion. Isn't it part of the notion of agape that it involves an unconditional concern for the welfare of the other? — andrewk

Well, it's hard for me to see how the concept of unconditional love has any meaning without a spiritual context. Love without condition, "love, no matter what", in theory, is very romantic. But in practice it is brutal. To love without condition requires an extreme zealousness. I would argue that real unconditional love is nearly non-existent in the world. We see a shadow of it when brave soldiers lay down their lives, and when religious zealots burn at the stake, and when a father lays down his life for his son. We see the shadows of it in those things, but they are exceedingly rare, whereas there are no shortage of both religious and secular foghorns that love to proclaim the virtues of "God is Love", the virtues of "Love is Love is Love", but when put in the trenches, I wonder what those religious zealots, those atheistic zealots would actually be capable of.

The point being: The religious zealot and the atheistic zealot (and who else other than a zealot can declare Unconditional Love?) is often a greenhorn; untested, passionate, but clueless. The real cases of the glimpse of Unconditional Love in the world are rare and costly. How this severity of the cost of Unconditional Love can obtain without a spiritual context is completely lost on me.

What matters, of course, is what God thinks it means. — Thorongil

But of course what we think it means would be even more important, since if we get it wrong, we might go to hell...?

since being and goodness are convertible terms in traditional Christian thought. — Thorongil

Eh?

So what's the point of doing good on earth if we all are saved without even needing to try and live moral lives? — Buxtebuddha

The suggestion here is always, implicitly, that appealing to the more "vulgar" passions would be permissible, because those decisions don't matter within the scope of eternity. My question is: why do they matter within the scope of eternity? Or if eternity doesn't exist, why do they matter within the scope of one's given life span?

Love is unconditional. — andrewk

How do you predicate that concept sans religion or a spiritual disposition?

Who do you admire? — Buxtebuddha

I'm a noob, I'm just getting into the mystics, but I'm feeling right at home reading Evelyn Underhill's "Mysticism". I've read a little Julian of Norwhich, a little Boehme, and a little Eckhart. Oh and some William Blake. Eckhart was the hardest for me to get into, but I have a long way to go. But I was first introduced to them through reading Nikolai Berdyaev. I was introduced to him through Madeline L'Engle, of all people. Actually, my exploration of mysticism has been pretty mystical, in the sense that it's random and not at all academic, and mainly driven by my own intuition.

Indeed, but this framework alone misses out on good works, which are discussed elsewhere in the Bible. — Buxtebuddha

Right, I was just stating that for clarity. Of course, Paul's issue with good works was that "no man should boast"; basically the danger of legalism. But, how do good works obtain within a short 70 year life span, if a world of eternity exists afterwards? What's so important about this incomprehensible life with regards to the supposed after life? That concept, to me, seems like an unessisary antrhopomorphisation.

Perhaps in this example God is attempting to save us from drowning, but we swipe his hand away. — Buxtebuddha

Because it's a suicide attempt, or what?

It seems God must let us deny him (belief in him) even though letting us drown also goes against his nature to love. — Buxtebuddha

Yeah, I do think there's something there. But I don't think denial of God in this life leads to hell, because I don't understand the importance of this life vs. eternity, if eternity does in fact exist. So if someone denies God in this life, what makes anyone so certain that the transition to the next life would not a) change that person's attitude towards eternity, or b) signify some sort of arbitrary cutting off point? The idea that it does signify that cutting off point just reeks of humanity's horror and fear towards the unknown of death. There's no actual surety when dealing with the problem of death. Remaining unsure (and thus hopeful) here seems wisest.

What's this look like, exactly? You might have already described it, and forgive me if you have, but I'm still curious. — Buxtebuddha

I didn't, partially because I was out of brain juice (I'm rusty from not posting here much), and partially because I was at work. I'm pretty exhausted, but I'll give it a shot.

"That reality" refers to the web of interconnected, intersubjective sins that makes up the framework of human life. So an unconditional salvation would be a form of salvation that would operate within this reality, within this web. So the onus is not on the individual to have "right belief" (orthodoxy) within the inextricable web of "wrong belief" (heterodoxy?? heresy?) but rather, there's no "onus", but rather there's an Unconditional Love which is without predicate, and is the Reality which all life is bathed in. Rather than rationally obtaining "right belief", we intuitively experience "Reality", which is Unconditional Love, at various times. Or, we don't. But if we don't, that's often a product of environment (the reality of the web), as much as anything, thus why the onus is not on us. If the Reality of Unconditional Love exists, then no conscious being would fail to eventually arrive there. What the apparatus of arrival is, I have no idea. I recognize that might not help much; I'm sussing the ideas out, which is why I'm posting in your thread, rather than starting my own. :P

No, about an hour south of Lake Erie. Was randomly smoking on my front porch or something and just looked up...

I once saw the lights in Northeast Ohio, in the states. Super rare...it was red. :-O

I think of belief as the filter through which we view experience. It's not a great analogy, though. But it illustrates that belief creates reality, and the simplest form of belief is my beliefs about myself. If I believe I'm capable or incapable of doing something, that belief largely dictates whether I do it; self-belief creates self-reality.

From there, my beliefs about others and the world around me largely determine how I interact with that world. But self-belief is still the genesis of my actions in the world; Shame, for instance, which manifests as a belief in my own guilt and my own inability to overcome my guilt, will lead me to create a wall around myself; the self-belief permeates out into others and the world around me, and manifests as closing myself off, or insulting others when my shame is pricked. Now that self-belief creates a change in the world around me. My reality is a structure built of those self-beliefs and world-beliefs, not to mention the permeation of the self-beliefs and world-beliefs of not only those I'm in direct contact with, but those who designed this computer, the theologians who contributed to my perception of theology, Donald Trump, etc.

From there, philosophical, spiritual, or religious belief is, obviously, the most complex and difficult to map, and mostly the furthest from the self. I guess it tends to be interwoven with personal experience, therefore interwoven with self-belief and world-belief. I think the mystics get closest, because, rather than the most abstract form of belief, their spiritual beliefs are directly connected to both practice and experience; they're the ones who "actually mean it". For non-mystics, an ultimately rational analysis of concepts will create the world of philosophical beliefs in which they think and act.

Salvation is a lot harder for me to parse at this point. I get the general Christian sense of it, from being raised with it. I think the popularly accepted, simplest concept is: all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but Jesus offers salvation through...yep, belief in him.

So, that view is clearly flawed. A salvation predicated on belief is conditional. But a conditional salvation, given the diffuse, complex web of beliefs which I just described, would essentially be a cruel joke.

So, conditional salvation doesn't make sense. So salvation must be unconditional. The condition of belief can't be a predicate for salvation. If you're drowning in a river, you don't need to believe, or trust, or be confident that I can save you in order for me to actually successfully save you.

All of that being said, I don't find the word salvation to be adequate to describe what all of these concepts are actually pointing to. The web of beliefs (and it is a web, since every individual adds their portion of the web into the entire whole), is too complex and interconnected to say that one correct belief is the predicate for some sort of conditional salvation, from, presumably, damnable sin, which apparently needs to be made in a 70 year lifespan, and is a consequence for "all of eternity". But rather, the web of belief itself is the predicate for the "sins" of humanity; sin is intersubjective between individuals. What's needed isn't personal salvation from one's own sins, but rather a form of salvation that fully acknowledges that no one has complete control of the web of beliefs and sins that forms the entire basis for human life. So an unconditional salvation would stem from that reality.

:’( :’( :’(

So, I'm a pluralist. I'm also not a relativist... But, I have entertained the idea of pluralism in regards to truth. — anonymous66

Pluralism but not relativism seems to make the most sense to me as well.

The "subject/object" divide is always tricky, and also erroneous, I think. Obviously, if the different paths all lead to the same mountain peak, then the peak is "objective" in the sense of it being singular; we don't magically arrive at a plurality of mountain peaks while scaling the same mountain; we arrive at a singular peak. So you could view the subject/object dichotomy this way; the travelers on their paths up the mountain are subjects, moving towards the object; the peak. This is helpful, because, rather than, for instance, Christianity being the "one true faith", it's the peak itself which is the "one true". The Christian faith is one of several paths which lead to the "the one true".

Or is it the case that there is one "correct" view of reality (that has no basis in religion) and that we should all accept that "correct" view of reality? — anonymous66

And to emphasize what I'm trying to say, the "view of reality" has nothing to do with objectivity; so the concept of one view being objectively right is misguided. Again, what's objective is the goal. The view is, quite literally, the viewpoint from which the goal is seen; I see it from my corner of the internet, you see it from yours; my view isn't the correct one, nor is yours, but what's important is that we're viewing the objective goal as best we can.