Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:Think I know what you mean EH and I get it from this as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIxEPYkXkU8

My goodness! I thought I was the only one alive who still knows and loves that!

EH, great post!

But one of the things that I love to do is just listen -- especially when it's to a brand new piece, or to something much loved (usually evoking a purely emotional reaction in me). Listen and don't think. Just feel it, wrap my body in it, let the mystery overtake me.

Very well said. I am delighted to meet the poet in you.

By the way, I play music as well. Or more accurately, I used to play with great earnestness but modest ability, before I discovered the net. It was through music that I discovered the net.

But the thing is, as much as I love to do that, like Bernstein, if I really want more, then I must also now engage the thinking part of my brain,

Yes, of course. You've invested considerable time and energy in to studying music theory, and thus are able to explore music intellectually, which I agree can be quite satisfying.

The premise of aphilosophy is that just as you have patiently developed your intellectual experience of music, the "just listen" part can be patiently developed as well.

Whether the "just listen" part should be developed is up to you of course, but in order to be in a position to make that decision, it's helpful to know it can be.

So I would suggest that for a short while -- while just listening -- I'm doing what you are talking about.

I would suggest that we are now doing what I'd hoped to do in these threads from the beginning. Each of us doing our own research, and coming together to share it.

I do the same when I walk in the woods, but again, not all the time. There is nothing in the world like the sound of the deep boreal forest at first crack of light in the morning, long before there's any noise but the forest and my own breathing. It is indescribable, because I don't describe it, I live it. So again, I believe I'm "exploring beyond thought" as you would have it.

This is the primary aphilosophy method for me. All of this comes so much easier for me in nature. aPhilosophy and nature have kind of merged in to one subject for me. Others report this as well, but I wouldn't make this in to some kind of rule or requirement.

It is these ways, and a few others, that I "medidate," although I know I'm co-opting that word in a way most people wouldn't use it. But it works for me. Other sorts of medidation, however, are not for me.

As your own comments above indicate, meditation comes in a thousands forms. Whatever works is the best rule. There's much room for mix and match experimentation.

If you'll pardon a bit of advice, I'd be wary of being too eager to declare what is or isn't for you.

I would say aphilosophy involves an open minded creative exploration of methods, and a conscious decision to further develop whatever methods seem most promising.

Just as in philosophy, there are many discoveries to be made along the way, and something that doesn't seem interesting today may become interesting tomorrow.

Studying the existence of a pencil for the sake of calming my thinking mind isn't for me,

Some pencils are more interesting than others, said the randy old horn dog guru as he sat under the pear tree. Like I said, sometimes creativity is an aide.

When I haven't got enough problems to resolve (I'm no longer an IT Architect, though I was for a long time), I turn automatically to difficult puzzles, to reading, to learning, to whatever engages my thinking mind because the warm purring of that thing is what I most enjoy -- though others find that sort of thing drudgery.

This meeting of United Nerds Local #45 will come to order. As you can see, we share this passion. When I'm not typing here, I'm typing code.

Now, when we apply this to religion, there I have a problem. I lack the "sensory organ" for religious experience, and it won't do any good at all to tell me that I don't lack it, I just don't know how to turn it on. Trust me, it is not there.

This raises the interesting question of, what is religious experience?

In my view, the beliefs, concepts, dogmas and ideology etc of religion are the surface level. They are a doorway if you will, which we have labeled 'religion", that appeals to a certain kind of person.

Here's what I hear from a year of reading your posts. It is of course, just what I hear, not necessarily what is there. What I hear is....

You are quite interested in whatever is behind the door. But as you approach this particular door we call religion, you find it ugly, repulsive, and inaccessible. But you're still interested in whatever may be behind the door.

This creates a push/pull conflict, which causes you to become somewhat agitated and annoyed. And so you start yelling at the door.

Another option is to keep your eye on the ball (whatever may be behind the door), forget this annoying door, and go around the building and see if you can find another door you like better.

It's true that aphilosophy was probably invented by theists, and that many theists are drawn to it. But, imho, aphilosophy is fundamentally neither religious or anti-religious. It's neither above or below such interests, but just outside of that paradigm.

So, too, for me and religion. I have only my powers of analysis. Now, the interesting thing about religion and that analysis is that MOST (and I agree not all) of what ordinary religious believers claim does not make rational sense.

What I've tried to demonstrate in my way too many and way too rowdy posts on this topic is that this "not making sense" is bigger than just religion, it encompasses anti-religion as well.

This insight brings me to the more sweeping conclusion that thought itself is simply inadequate for this particular job. Their thoughts, my thoughts, your thoughts, it doesn't matter. On this topic, the search for the perfect thought is doomed from the start, or so my thoughts say.

But when something actually does contradict reason (God loves everybody, has absolute power and foreknowledge -- and yet still constructed a hell into which non-believers will be tossed), then any ability to reason towards understanding of it becomes an impossibility.

Religion is a much bigger thing that you tend to give it credit for. Yes, religion is full of assertions which can be subjected to reason. But if that's all religion was, it would have died out long ago.

I saw a sappy movie about country music the other night that had me tearing up, even thought the plot was thoroughly common Hollywood fare.

It wasn't the plot, but the music. And I'm not a country music fan at all really. I'm just open minded. So when the emotion started to happen, I just let it happen, without allowing a rational analysis and judgments etc to get in the way.

Some people experience religion this way I suspect. It just feels good, so they roll with it, and skip doing the nerd dance you and I would do.

Perhaps the reason you don't like religion so much is that you insist on reducing it to the one aspect of religion that you are allergic too?

Typist wrote:This raises the interesting question of, what is religious experience?

This is the most interesting question of all for me. I can talk (to a limited degree) about what a musical experience is. I know others with more, less or similar musical experience to mine, who agree, disagree, or merely look at me like the 9 hairs left on my head are on fire.

Let’s begin by unpacking. First, “experience.” Every creature (and many programs, through their logic statements) is capable of reacting to events or stimuli. But your program does not “experience” because it is not conscious. The plant turns its leaves to the sun, but it does not (I think) “experience” because consciousness requires a CNS. I think animals (and quite possibly insects) experience at various levels, though I’d be hard-pressed to quantify anything. But for the human being, experience means not only to be affected by something, but to process the effect within our consciousness. (I do not experience surgery, for example, because my consciousness has been suppressed. It is an open question whether there are modules of our brains inaccessible to our consciousness that are screaming in holy terror throughout.)

And we all “experience” a great many things – some generated externally and received through our senses, and some not. And the things that we experience then need interpretation. The mirage is an experience. The light we receive through our eyes really is coming in, and we perceive the great pool of water on the hot road as real. Yet, we know (or some of us do) that what are really experiencing is a reflection of the sky bent by the hot/cooler air close to the road’s surface. That knowledge (for those who have it) doesn’t change what it looks like, but makes us unafraid to continue driving towards it. Without that knowledge, we may well see ourselves driving towards our own certain destruction! (And of course it is always possible that there really is a flood ahead, and not a mirage at all, and thus we are indeed doomed!)

So now we can proceed, in our unpacking, to the word “religious” in your question “what is religious experience.” And my answer to that is very simply one of interpretation. I may very well be wrong about this (not for quite the first time in my life), but I am firmly of the opinion that “religious” means having answers, as opposed to irreligious, which to me means having questions. I don’t know what causes some things. I don’t, therefore, propose and accept a cause which I’ve just said I am ignorant of. It remains a question. If I can’t bear the question being open and/or unanswerable, then I have a dilemma, and perhaps I’m going to have to propose (and then accept) an answer. Or rather more usually, accept somebody else’s proposed answer.

And to me, that’s the crossover into religion. I am perfectly comfortable with “I don’t know.” It means that I must decide for myself how to proceed, but I always know that I am doing so on the basis of the best knowledge/information/insight that I have – and that I could well be wrong. Welcome to being human.

Oh, and the reason I don't like religion? Not an allergy, no. It's because religion insists on saying "I do know," what is impossible to know, and even worse, to then prescribe action not only for the believer, but for others as well. And that ain't human (although it is what most humans do!)

Typist wrote:This raises the interesting question of, what is religious experience?

This is the most interesting question of all for me.

The fact that this is a most interesting question to you is itself interesting, given your adamant rejection of religion. The question arises, why would a person with your world view care what the religious experience is?

Without pretending to know in any individual case, I attempt to explain this general phenomena to myself as follows.

As I tried to say above, I think religion is just a means, not the desired end.

Drugs might be an example. Drugs are a means to the end of getting high. If drug users found some other way to get high that didn't involve the risks associated with drugs, they would likely happily abandon drugs and pursue their end goal by some other method.

So the most interesting question for me is, what are we looking for? What is it that we really want? Whatever we want, why do we want it? Where did the need come from, what is it's source?

As example, we can campaign against drugs, but the more productive question seems to be, why do so many folks want to take drugs?

....or merely look at me like the 9 hairs left on my head are on fire.

Ha, ha! An entertaining image!

But your program does not “experience” because it is not conscious.

By "my program" do you mean aphilosophy? If yes, then I respectfully submit this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the mind. And, I would suggest you can confirm this for yourself with a close observation of your own mind.

I explain it to myself like this.

We might say the mind has two modes, date intake and data processing. The mind naturally shifts back and forth between the two in response to the environment.

Let's say you are driving to work on a road you've taken a thousand times. You know the route by heart, so your mind is "lost in thought" that is, data processing, while driving to work.

Then a kid on a bike shoots out in to the street. Data processing immediately clicks off. That is, your awareness shifts out of the abstract symbol world inside your head. Data intake is now the mind's focus, as your mind grabs for all available data in this critical situation.

You are fully conscious, fully alert, but for a moment, not thinking. Your full attention is on the real world.

This shift back and forth between modes happens naturally and routinely all day long. But it happens very fast, and is so utterly routine, that we don't usually notice it.

All aphilosophy really is, is a deliberate effort to gain some control over this process. That is, gaining the ability to say to the brain, "If you're not doing anything important right now, please take a break and cool off, stop processing data for a bit."

But for the human being, experience means not only to be affected by something, but to process the effect within our consciousness.

Typically this is true. We observe something, and then we think about it.

But this isn't a fixed rule, a limitation. It's mostly just a habit.

If we observe our brain closely, we'll notice that the vast majority of time it's spinning it's gears on an endless repetition of petty mundane issues, mostly related to ego. And all the while it's "lost in thought" grinding on the endless pettiness, the real world is still happening, largely unobserved.

And the things that we experience then need interpretation.

Some things do need interpretation. If the issue involved relates to the needs of the body, it's wise to analyze the issue using our intellect etc.

Some things don't need interpretation. A piece of music can be beautiful and moving, even for those who never studied music theory, and are incapable of conducting an analysis. There are a million things in every day life that don't need to be interpreted, and might better be simply fully experienced.

The trick is that it's not really possible to be fully focused on both the abstract world and real world at the same time. To the degree I'm thinking about what I'm going to say next, I'm not fully listening to you.

I may very well be wrong about this (not for quite the first time in my life), but I am firmly of the opinion that “religious” means having answers, as opposed to irreligious, which to me means having questions.

I agree this is indisputably true for many people. I also feel it's true that you focus all your attention on this set of people, thus missing others in the process.

Everybody involved in religion is not a concept nerd like us. Everybody in religion is not focused on abstract explanations for big metaphysical questions.

In most traditions I'm aware of, it seems the focus of religion for many is love and service. For others it's ritual and community.

For others it's a bond with their cultural history. I've had this experience myself while visiting the oldest church in America a few hours from here. I have no interest in Catholic ideology, but when I go to a Catholic place, and see Catholic people, it unlocks memories of childhood and family that are deep.

Religion is huge. It's like nature, encompassing all things, for the better and the worse.

I don’t know what causes some things. I don’t, therefore, propose and accept a cause which I’ve just said I am ignorant of. It remains a question.

I propose that you are happy to accept all kinds of things on faith, including your a-religious religion. But, we've discussed this many times already, probably too many.

And to me, that’s the crossover into religion. I am perfectly comfortable with “I don’t know.”

Are you? Or are you sure that religion is wrong, even though there's no way you can actually know that? How is that different than somebody else being sure religion is right, even though there's no way they can actually know that?

As I sense you are beginning to understand, "I don't know" is quite a leap. It's not simply a move from position X to position Y, but the surrender of having a position.

So another question might be, why are we so intent on having positions on things we can't possibly know?

It seems we've finally found a way to talk to each other, a cause for celebration.

It's at times like this that the limitations of the net become glaringly apparent. I'm thinking it's hug time, and a hug emoticon just doesn't cut the mustard.

Oh well, virtual hugs to you my friend. Good chat.

evangelicalhumanist wrote:My goodness! I thought I was the only one alive who still knows and loves that!

My mum still has the original vinyl.

Typist wrote:...
I would suggest that we are now doing what I'd hoped to do in these threads from the beginning. Each of us doing our own research, and coming together to share it.
...

My take is what you are doing is waiting for others to do your work for you and then you'll claim, "That's what I meant".

today we make some tasty religion.
first you need one internally coherent belief system. if you dont think you have one right now, you can take one from my cooking with nerds-video. available only in tv-shop. with tons of funny knives. plus postal fee. theres big bang and darwin in five minutes-starter.
second you need some ceremonies and repeated formulas like rituals, own signs, etiquette and practising places with guidance of promoted ones. to give some look and shape.
third you spend with it and cold oven a whole night or more awake. until you start to see it alive and running.
enjoy! and remember to wash your hands!

my other video is how you can decorate it to aphilosophy, science, mysticism, familylife and whatever you like.
even philosophy, and you can use it later thousand ways or to do some aphilosophy too. concentrating to thinking the thoughts so much that it turns to higher than solipsism levels mindless athinking hard to describe to people with mind of their own.
and more to come.

Typist wrote:

Typist wrote:This raises the interesting question of, what is religious experience?

This is the most interesting question of all for me.

The fact that this is a most interesting question to you is itself interesting, given your adamant rejection of religion. The question arises, why would a person with your world view care what the religious experience is?

Perhaps you mistake my thoughts on religion. An awful lot of people (even some I know and care about) believe a great many silly things, and though I'm often bemused, usually I'm not offended. It is not what people believe, nor even what the "religious experience" (whatever that might be, but I can empathize based on music or experience of nature) is. As far as I'm concerned, people are free to have whatever experiences they like. You mention drugs, for example, and though I don't care who uses them (my partner likes to smoke a little weed), I've never been in the slightest interested myself. Though I do like my beer!

No, it's what is far too often the result of religious belief that I rail against. Let me give you an example from today's newspapers in Toronto. Toronto's Coptic Christians are threatening to take their children out of the Catholic school system because that system is considering a "gay equity" policy. (Let me quote something from the article: "the Coptic Church is vehemently opposed to any education about homosexuality." Let me paraphrase: "Ignorance must be preserved.") Our public system already has that, so of course the Copts would have to go private, period-end-of-story. And they mean to do it, too -- which would be harmful to the Catholic school system, and probably to their own children and pocketbooks -- unless the Catholic system relents, which would be harmful to gay Catholic students.

This is a religious imposition on what is now pretty much mainstream knowledge -- that people don't choose their sexuality. But if you religion doesn't permit you to hate and hurt others, what the hell good is it?

There are too many things like this all over the world. Like it or not, the truth is that religion may have some good things going for it, but it has far too often done very real hurt.

And here's the real point -- as I said earlier, I have no issue with what you believe, but the moment you try to apply it (especially forcefully) to somebody else, I will try to slap you down, because you don't have the right. How far does religious tolerance go? If your religion says you must cut your daughter's vagina, should you be allowed to do so? If your religion says you should be allowed to kill gay people, should you?

It is a mistake, I think, to suppose that religion does not fairly often make precisely such demands.

Perhaps you remember my essay "The God in Your Head is Real?" The entire point of that is simply this -- when the God you believe in begins to act in the world THROUGH YOU (the only way He ever acts), that is the moment that your religion becomes (or has the strong potential) to become offensive. (I admit that it also sometimes becomes, or has the potential to become, of great benefit, but I don't allow that to excuse harm.)

And let me take just one moment to talk about "religious experience" (which I have not had). Everybody that I have met (and there are a few, believe me) who has had what they feel was a real religious experience has come away more loving, not less, more accepting of others, not less, more convinced that everybody shares in their God's love and grace. So I don't accuse belief -- I accuse religion, which often has far, far too little to do with what people actually believe (or so I think).

I understand.

Just so you know, I totally agree with you in regards to anti-gay religious proclamations. I don't think I'm going to try to upstage a gay person in regards to liberalness on this issue, but let's just say, I don't think you'd find me lacking. I have zero reservations about gay marriage etc.

I would propose that your speeches on this topic are wasted here on a predominantly atheist forum. So...

If you'd like a hunting buddy, I'd be happy to travel to some anti-gay religious forum with you sometime, and kick some ass. As you've seen, I can be pretty ruthless and relentless, and I'd be happy to lend these talents, I um mean, pathetic personality flaws, to your cause. If you find a target, just send me the link, and I'll suit up.

All that said, as you already know....

Perhaps because I'm not gay, I have a much broader view of this.

To me, every ideology runs the risk of being dangerous. I've met lots of bile spewing hate filled atheists too, ya know? Nobody is immune.

Hey, you should see aphilosophers duke it out on aphilosophy forums. No shit, there's nothing funnier than hysterical mud slinging battles on a meditation forum. And the irony is so delectably rich. I assure you, the ideological part of aphilosophy can become a hateful power tripping vehicle also.

It's not just religion, or atheism, or aphilosophy.

It's ideology.

It's thought itself, dividing everything it touches.

Typist wrote:It's thought itself, dividing everything it touches.

As example, consider who is doing the anti-gay activism that concerns you.

Mostly conservative Christians, right?

Ok, and what is Christianity?

An ideology that is very explicitly all about love.

Point being, if an ideology that is very explicitly all about love can be infected with hate, what ideology is immune?

Typist wrote:Ok, and what is Christianity?

An ideology that is very explicitly all about love.

Point being, if an ideology that is very explicitly all about love can be infected with hate, what ideology is immune?

Good point, but questionable example. Christianity emerged from a harsh, ignorant worldview that was dripping in blood and violence and vengeance and genocide. Christianity has at its heart a bloody human sacrifice that is supposed to deal with our human nature which it sees as corrupt. It's thoroughly judgemental, not at all reluctant to cast opponents into an eternity of torment. Christ, and then we could look at how it's worked out in practise... what a joke. Nah, I can't accept that it's all about love. I'd say it's all about power and control and oppression. Ha, and it warns of wolves in sheep's clothing. Projection?

Yeah! Christianity just oozes love:

Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to "set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; 36 and "a man's enemies will be those of his own household.'

Luke 12:51 Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. 52 For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. 53 Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

Typist wrote:...
Hey, you should see aphilosophers duke it out on aphilosophy forums. ...

I keep goggling this term and can find no such forums? What are you describing? The various new-age, faith and spiritual philosophy sites sites out there? Is this what 'aphilosophy' is? It defines itself in oppostion to an imagined view of western philosophy? No actual content in itself?

Hi Blackbox.

Ok, fair enough, surely there's some truth in what you said. The reality probably is that Christianity is not fully described by either of our posts.

So let's take another example...

Communism. An explicitly atheist ideology. It started off with truly noble ambitions to liberate the masses from oppression by the rich, and well, we all know how it turned out.

Yes, I know, I know, now you are anxious to defend your ideology and attack the other guy's ideology. Go for it if you must. Go for it for another thousands years, run the experiment, yet again, and see what happens.

To me, ideology is all one thing.

And yes, this includes an anti-ideology ideology too.

Imagine this...

Let's say we all meet at EH's house for the evening. After viewing his collection of computer generated anti-theism art work we sit down together in his living room. The evening could go a couple of ways.

PHILOSOPHY: We could share our interest in religion, politics and other ideological topics. It would start off nice, but sooner or later the passions would be engaged. Somebody, probably me, would jump up on the couch and yell, "ATHEISM IS AN ABOMINATION!!" and then the food would begin to fly.

Or....

APHILOSOPHY: Suppose we just sat there. Instead of discussing topics, we discuss nothing. We just hang out silently, experiencing each other's company.

Oooh, you say, that's creepy! Yes, it might be uncomfortably intimate.

We might learn that all the talk is actually a defensive mechanism we use to protect ourselves from anything too real. I'm safely inside my aPhilosophy professor bubble, and you're safely inside your atheist activist bubble, and we let the bubble's engage for us, so that we can't be touched.

If we could man up, and get past a fear of the unknown, we might discover that sitting together doing nothing was a more powerful and meaningful experience than an evening of the usual intellectual horseplay.

But then, after a few hours of this, the closeness of doing nothing together might finally overwhelm us.

So to break the spell, I'll just have to set EH's last 12 hairs on fire.

And once again 'aphilosophy' begins to descend into religion and the atheist.

Are you ever going to say something concrete about this 'aphilosophy' that others can actually use in the world?