Philosophy Now Forum

Reflex

Perhaps, but I really am trying to understand. Actually, I think I do understand what you're saying because I used to believe the same thing. I eventually came to accept that Reality as I experience is two-fold: one is finite, temporal and necessary; the other is infinite, eternal and free. A tadpole such as myself must live as a tadpole until it become a frog. There's no sense in pretending this tadpole is a frog. Make-believe can only be a hindrance to my growth. Feeling wretched or needing to atone are also detrimental. Yes, in a certain sense "God's in his heaven and all's right with the world," but that point of view is only fully accessible to the infinite, eternal and free. And although those qualities are in me, for the most part my existence is finite, temporal and necessary.

Is there a difference between emotionally egoistically expressing wretchedness and the affirmation of the human condition as wretched?

The recognition of human wretchedness is difficult for whoever is rich and powerful because he is almost invincibly led to believe that he is something. It is equally difficult for the man in miserable circumstances because he is almost invincibly led to believe that the rich and powerful man is something. ~ Simone Weil

A tadpole mechanically becomes a frog. Becoming human is a conscious process rejected by worldly conditioning. This is a wretched situation. It doesn’t make it “bad” but just a fact of the human condition. To atone for me means freeing oneself from habitual conditioning by first consciously witnessing it for what it is. Then it can be let go. Do you object to these conceptions?

Reflex,

In discussing your beliefs, you seem to identify the boundaries of who you are, what is possible, and what is or must be.

A tadpole such as myself must live as a tadpole until it become a frog. There's no sense in pretending this tadpole is a frog. Make-believe can only be a hindrance to my growth.

Believing you are a tadpole who must follow a process to become a frog could easily be make-believe. The idea that any transformation must follow a certain process or linear path, or must take a certain amount of time or look a certain way, could all be make-believe. There are plenty of examples of people who do not follow and are not defined by such structure. So it's not "necessary".

Yes, in a certain sense "God's in his heaven and all's right with the world," but that point of view is only fully accessible to the infinite, eternal and free.

How can you even put the word "but" after the first part of that sentence? And why do you water it down by introducing it with the words "In a certain sense"? Your conditions of a person needing to be infinite, eternal, and free could be said to be (as you like to say) "meaningless". To me, it sounds like an excuse. Such a point of view of "all being right with the world" is FULLY ACCESSIBLE ALL THE TIME. Rather than requiring the boundaries/path you specify, such could be accessed from a state of love, or as an attitude of acceptance.

The idea that we must reach some point where we are fully immersed in the glory of a god 24/7, seems to discard "ALL THE REST OF IT", as NOT BEING OF GOD. Such a view could easily be said to be make-believe. Why not ACCEPT ALL OF IT? Why not rejoice in all of it? Why not play with all of it while knowing that all is right with the world?

God (or, if you prefer, perfection) is the light on the other side of a cosmic prism and we live in the spectrum of its light. It's all light, but it's not the Light. It's not a new or alien concept.

It's a concept. Even if it's an "old one". There are SURELY many alternative concepts that have been around since the dawn of man. Saying that God is all, but all is not God, sounds like human judgment.

You're right, theists are pretty vocal in identifying their philosophy, but non-theists tend to be elusive about theirs so there is seldom an equitable give-and-take. The discussion with Greta is a good example.

Perhaps that's because theism and non-theism do not contain the same elements to give and take. It's not a simple "this for that" trade-off. Theism is typically built on certain rules -- non-theism is not, it is very diverse. So it's not like comparing apples to oranges... it's like comparing apples to hummingbirds.

I agree with the Tao Te Ching which says:

Sure... there's truth in that. It doesn't encompass or invalidate the vast range of possibilities that any of us can experience.

Some people like to live by rules and within boundaries. Some like to feel they have a path, and that it is the "right" path (of course, that probably means they'll be vocal about their perceptions of the "wrong" paths). But options and perspectives are so vast... doesn't it come down to what we're "choosing/making-up" for ourselves? When there are so many ways that "it works". So many ways to love and harmonize. It doesn't require any particular path or perspective.

Reflex wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:52 am ...not everything is God.

Lacewing wrote: Who is capable of determining what is and isn't?

Reflex wrote:Every being of normal mind.

And such determinations are made-up and variable, yes? For the individual... they decide what is and what is not of God, for themselves? So if there are those who decide that ALL IS GOD... they live with and experience that, and it is truth for them. For those who think otherwise, they live with and experience what is truth for them. Individual thoughts and decisions do not reflect the limits or experiences for all, nor do they reflect universal or eternal truths, nor do they reflect a particular true god.

Once last thing... all of the quotes of "reputable" people do not affect me as "authoritative proclamations". They are all people who are equals. We all have access and ability to the same ideas and understandings. You will pick and choose from all that are available to reflect alignment with your own views. But it's ALL, out there... so, in your words, you would perhaps classify such a distinctive focus as "meaningless", if someone besides you was doing it.

There is no shortage of people (famous and not) who share my perspectives. I typically don't feel compelled to quote anyone -- I'm just speaking my own words and exploring my own creative expression -- while smiling at the thought that it's all divine. Even tears, pain, horror are divine. And I'm not sitting in a smoky den wacked out on mind-altering substances... I'm functioning just fine in the real world, facing all of its challenges like most people.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:58 pm Do you disagree with this definition of secularism:

Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable.

It makes no sense to me to try and define secularism with a sentence... or at all. Additionally, if you apply any single definition to humans, without considering all else that could be in play, you are fooling yourself. Every human I've ever met has some kind of spiritual nature about them. I've not met anyone (not even the evil people I've known) whose considerations were ONLY HUMAN. I think the wording of the sentence you quote is simply identifying the difference between being focused on god or humans. A person focused on humans is not without spirit. But your extreme interpretation to validate your extreme platform IGNORES ALL ELSE. You want to believe what you want to believe... and it is obviously very limited.

Regardless of what you say you support or care about, your stance continually fails to demonstrate or recognize any love or understanding in general. So I think you're just howling into the wind like a madman, in this regard. I'm sure there is MUCH more capability and quality in you, but for whatever reason (perhaps some trauma that has diseased you), you've chosen to identify and control things for yourself in very limited terms.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:58 pm I oppose the philosophy as harmful and unrealistic. Secularists are intolerant of people who value the idea of an eternal unchanging God within which eternal values necessary to sustain universal purpose exist as ideas or forms according to Plato which involve and devolve into qualities of consciousness within our great universe.

You oppose what you, yourself, are fabricating. That's not impressive.

Lacewing, you've inspired me to post the "One Elemental Law" thread. It describes why I do not accept the modern "create your own reality" belief. Science and intuition will verify the necessity of a conscious source rather than disprove it. Concepts re one thing and laws are another.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24336

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:38 pm Lacewing, you've inspired me to post the "One Elemental Law" thread. It describes why I do not accept the modern "create your own reality" belief.

Why can't you see "creating your own reality" to be the truth/experience on one level of reality/experience, while "one elemental law" may exist behind all of it? Why does one negate the other? You seem to try to pinpoint some ultimate truth to align yourself with, WHILE IGNORING ALL THE REST OF IT. You're like a fish seeking the ultimate spot of water while you swim in the ocean.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:38 pm Science and intuition will verify the necessity of a conscious source rather than disprove it.

Are you suggesting a god? Neither of the quotes says that. Rather: "leading us through higher metaphysical notions, such as absolute beauty, all the way to ultimate reality, which is pure, absolute One." I talk about ALL BEING ONE, all the time (which you seem to reject). I also talk about all that we humans are able to create... which includes our realities. BOTH can be true.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:38 pm Concepts re one thing and laws are another.

And both, concepts and "laws", are subject to confusion and fabrication. Again, you seem to seek to know, define, and be aligned with some sort of specific ultimate truth, yes? Why are you not content with all of it? Is it because you want/need to come up with justification for why you REJECT it?

To Belinda and Nick_A:

Thanks for your responses to my May 29 post! Maybe I'll follow up with your suggestion, Belinda, to re-post it.

Nick_A, good question as to why we members of Homo sapiens apparently find it difficult to do better by each other. Some folks seem to do better than others, and as an unfortunate result, often fall victim to human ambition and violence. I think "God" (which I've put forth as a metaphor for "goodness") is an ideal for which many folks strive and hope but can't achieve consistently. The instincts to protect oneself and one's friends, to acquire power, lands, wealth, etc. through trampling on other people are at least strong, I think, as the instinct to help each other. Maybe the threats of nature, disease, and war will be strong enough to tilt us in favor of living well together, in the long run.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:05 pm
In discussing your beliefs, you seem to identify the boundaries of who you are, what is possible, and what is or must be.

Yes, but the boundaries are fuzzy, they are indefinite.

Believing you are a tadpole who must follow a process to become a frog could easily be make-believe. The idea that any transformation must follow a certain process or linear path, or must take a certain amount of time or look a certain way, could all be make-believe. There are plenty of examples of people who do not follow and are not defined by such structure. So it's not "necessary".

I do not dispute the first part, but everyone has structure to their existence no matter how ill-defined it might be. They wouldn't be a person without it.

Yes, in a certain sense "God's in his heaven and all's right with the world," but that point of view is only fully accessible to the infinite, eternal and free.

How can you even put the word "but" after the first part of that sentence? And why do you water it down by introducing it with the words "In a certain sense"? Your conditions of a person needing to be infinite, eternal, and free could be said to be (as you like to say) "meaningless". To me, it sounds like an excuse. Such a point of view of "all being right with the world" is FULLY ACCESSIBLE ALL THE TIME. Rather than requiring the boundaries/path you specify, such could be accessed from a state of love, or as an attitude of acceptance.

You read or have read ACIM, right?

What is there to love or accept without boundaries? Beauty, art, is largely a matter of the unification of contrasts, is it not? Variety is essential to the concept of beauty, and boundaries are essential to variety.

The idea that we must reach some point where we are fully immersed in the glory of a god 24/7, seems to discard "ALL THE REST OF IT", as NOT BEING OF GOD. Such a view could easily be said to be make-believe. Why not ACCEPT ALL OF IT? Why not rejoice in all of it? Why not play with all of it while knowing that all is right with the world?

People have different ways of dealing with their finitude, from seeking world domination to denial. I accept (or try to accept) what's on front of my face.

God (or, if you prefer, perfection) is the light on the other side of a cosmic prism and we live in the spectrum of its light. It's all light, but it's not the Light. It's not a new or alien concept.

It's a concept. Even if it's an "old one". There are SURELY many alternative concepts that have been around since the dawn of man. Saying that God is all, but all is not God, sounds like human judgment.

It is, but guess what? Saying it sounds like human sounds like human judgment

You're right, theists are pretty vocal in identifying their philosophy, but non-theists tend to be elusive about theirs so there is seldom an equitable give-and-take. The discussion with Greta is a good example.

Perhaps that's because theism and non-theism do not contain the same elements to give and take. It's not a simple "this for that" trade-off. Theism is typically built on certain rules -- non-theism is not, it is very diverse. So it's not like comparing apples to oranges... it's like comparing apples to hummingbirds.

You're right: non-theism is not built on certain rules. As a result, non-theists are hollow: like everyone else, they have dreams, hopes, values and aspirations, but, logically, it all comes to naught so they try to compensate by building on inconsistencies, denial and a failure to follow logic to the bitter end.

I agree with the Tao Te Ching which says:

Sure... there's truth in that. It doesn't encompass or invalidate the vast range of possibilities that any of us can experience.

There is absolutely nothing at all in my experience to suggest that is, or can be, even remotely true. You seem to be suggesting a kind of idealism that makes Hegel's "radical idealism" look like dualism.

Some people like to live by rules and within boundaries. Some like to feel they have a path, and that it is the "right" path (of course, that probably means they'll be vocal about their perceptions of the "wrong" paths). But options and perspectives are so vast... doesn't it come down to what we're "choosing/making-up" for ourselves? When there are so many ways that "it works". So many ways to love and harmonize. It doesn't require any particular path or perspective.

Everyone lives by rules and boundaries whether they realize it or not or they don't live at all. Life is nothing if not coherent

Reflex wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:52 am ...not everything is God.

Lacewing wrote: Who is capable of determining what is and isn't?

Reflex wrote:Every being of normal mind.

And such determinations are made-up and variable, yes? For the individual... they decide what is and what is not of God, for themselves?

Not entirely. Complete agreement would be inconsistent with what it is to be human; i.e., a synthesis.

So if there are those who decide that ALL IS GOD... they live with and experience that, and it is truth for them.

So what if it is? Does it correspond with reality?

For those who think otherwise, they live with and experience what is truth for them. Individual thoughts and decisions do not reflect the limits or experiences for all, nor do they reflect universal or eternal truths, nor do they reflect a particular true god.

Again -- and it seems I cannot say this often enough -- all human truth, finite truth, truth grounded in a circumscribed perspective, is relative to an Actual Truth (however indefinite it may be) against which it can be measured. It follows that "individual thoughts and decisions" are not equal. It's a reality I accept; a reality I choose to live with.

Once last thing... all of the quotes of "reputable" people do not affect me as "authoritative proclamations". They are all people who are equals. We all have access and ability to the same ideas and understandings.

I'll remember that the next time I talk to Jerry, a 50 year old man I know with the mental capacity of a 5 year-old. Nevertheless, I agree that what we believe rests with us.

There is no shortage of people (famous and not) who share my perspectives.

Very true! It's much easier than facing reality!

I typically don't feel compelled to quote anyone -- I'm just speaking my own words and exploring my own creative expression -- while smiling at the thought that it's all divine. Even tears, pain, horror are divine. And I'm not sitting in a smoky den wacked out on mind-altering substances... I'm functioning just fine in the real world, facing all of its challenges like most people.

If everything is divine, then nothing is divine. Kids watching The Incredibles movie got that much. It's a pity you don't.

Mike Strand wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:27 pm To Belinda and Nick_A:

Thanks for your responses to my May 29 post! Maybe I'll follow up with your suggestion, Belinda, to re-post it.

Nick_A, good question as to why we members of Homo sapiens apparently find it difficult to do better by each other. Some folks seem to do better than others, and as an unfortunate result, often fall victim to human ambition and violence. I think "God" (which I've put forth as a metaphor for "goodness") is an ideal for which many folks strive and hope but can't achieve consistently. The instincts to protect oneself and one's friends, to acquire power, lands, wealth, etc. through trampling on other people are at least strong, I think, as the instinct to help each other. Maybe the threats of nature, disease, and war will be strong enough to tilt us in favor of living well together, in the long run.

What IYO is goodness? Does it correspond with anything written in Genesis 1, Jesus' description of himself, or Plato's hierarchy of forms?

Genesis 1

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Why is the light called good”

Genesis 1:

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Why is creation called very good?


MARK 10:18

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

Why is God called good but Jesus doesn't consider himself to be good?

Plato’s Form of Good
Plato believed that the Forms were interrelated, and arranged in a hierarchy. The highest Form is the Form of the Good, which is the ultimate principle.

Why are the forms called good?

Reflex wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:36 pm …

I was going to respond to you, but you ended up being such an asshole in the things you were saying to me, I'll skip it.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:53 pm

Reflex wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:36 pm …

I was going to respond to you, but you ended up being such an asshole in the things you were saying to me, I'll skip it.

According to you, I'm a divine asshole you love and take pleasure in.

Reflex wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:06 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:53 pm

Reflex wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:36 pm …

I was going to respond to you, but you ended up being such an asshole in the things you were saying to me, I'll skip it.

According to you, I'm a divine asshole you love and take pleasure in.

'Tis true! Doesn't mean I want to roll around with you or slog through your stew.

Love,

Lacewing

Lacewing

Why can't you see "creating your own reality" to be the truth/experience on one level of reality/experience, while "one elemental law" may exist behind all of it? Why does one negate the other? You seem to try to pinpoint some ultimate truth to align yourself with, WHILE IGNORING ALL THE REST OF IT. You're like a fish seeking the ultimate spot of water while you swim in the ocean.

Creating your own reality is fantasy by definition. We live in Plato’s cave attached to the shadows on the wall. We interpret these shadows in accordance with our lack of balance so by definition it is fantasy. It is possible for a person not to create their own reality but rather to consciously experience the reality of the level of reality we live on. But it first requires recognition of the human condition and the need for truth. This of course is only possible for a relative few. The World as a whole must hate this ego threatening idea that it lives in self deception and prefers to worship its self deception.

The plane of reality we exit upon is connected to the ONE but we don’t experience the reality but rather imagine it so we negate the connection.

Are you suggesting a god? Neither of the quotes says that. Rather: "leading us through higher metaphysical notions, such as absolute beauty, all the way to ultimate reality, which is pure, absolute One." I talk about ALL BEING ONE, all the time (which you seem to reject). I also talk about all that we humans are able to create... which includes our realities. BOTH can be true.

Yes, I’m asserting that God IS and creation EXISTS as a lawful process within isness.

Can you be open to the difference between No-thing and every-thing? Can “ALL BEING ONE” and fractions of ONE existing on levels of reality as lower qualities of being simultaneously exist within No-Thing? Can white light and its division into the three primary colors simultaneously exist as lower frequencies of vibration? If they do then everything can serve the process of existence within the no-thing of ONE.

Divine Asshole?? Wasn't that one of Stormy Daniel's pseudonyms?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:29 am Divine Asshole?? Wasn't that one of Stormy Daniel's pseudonyms?

LOL! No matter how enamored one is with an idealism that says everything is divine, sooner or later, reality will raise its ugly head.

Reflex wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:21 am No matter how enamored one is with an idealism that says everything is divine, sooner or later, reality will raise its ugly head.

The ugly head is God!

What ELSE do you think there is?

Do you think only beautiful and nice things are God/divine? How much sense does that make? There's your fantasy land.