We have not established that no one knows what the self is.Sue: It’s “grasping” in the same way people believe in angles, fairies, gurus, unicorns, and godheads. It's cowardice.
Carl: Belief in those things may imply grasping or cowardice or it may not. It does not automatically do so by definition.
Sue: How can it not? Belief is caused by the irrational urge to pad out one’s existence. And that’s utter madness.
Carl: Why?
Sue: It’s madness to accessorize the self without first knowing what it is!
Anyway, you made a blanket statement that anyone who believes in "angels, fairies, gurus, unicorns, and godheads" is grasping, cowardly, and mad. Your argument is what?
You quoted Alex as saying “My answer is that one does it by grounding oneself in one's own life, in one's own body, and understanding that our experiences come to us in this platform, in this biological, psychological structure”.
You called his statement a fantasy world and "That’s just grasping without any thought as to whether or not any of it is true. It’s “grasping” in the same way people believe in angles, fairies, gurus, unicorns, and godheads. It's cowardice."
Are you really claiming that anyone who acknowledges the physical side of life cannot by definition be thinking about the relative truth of the physical? Are you seriously calling it grasping, again by definition (true in all cases) that someone would do this? And are you considering an acknowledgment of the physical to be akin to believing in angels, fairies, gurus, unicorns, and godheads? And, have we really proven that none of those entities exist in the physical, or more accurately said, in anything but the imagination?
By definition? What about the role of ordinary ignorance; i.e. we identify with our bodies because we haven't yet learned to see from a broader perspective.Carl: Because you have never experienced a fairy or a godhead (not sure what that is, exactly)? Are you saying that all belief is madness? What about belief in the world being round? What about belief in wisdom? Where is the line to be drawn?
Sue: What I’m talking about is using ‘things’ to build up an existence. I call this type of building, “grasping”, because it’s a desperate attempt to fortify the self from being buffeted about by the universe.
What I am against here is blanket statements, and so I challenge what seems to be some of those from you.
Okay, but what about those who have experienced fairies, those who have, for instance seen fairies, those for whom fairies are more than a fairy story?Examples of which are the adoption of fairies into one’s life because they’re said to bring good luck.
Again, on what authority do we dismiss fairies as being definitely never more than a product of the imagination?And that’s adults believing in fairies - not children! It should just be the kiddies exploring such a fantasy land, but no, it’s grown up people who should obviously know better.
Agreed about growing up, but how do we know that there are no gods, goddesses, what you refer to as deity?Why? Because growing up must mean more than just growing taller and wider. One’s thinking must also grow up. But for most people, growing away from fantasy land obviously isn’t happening. Good-luck-fairies are absorbed into grown-up’s lives as easily as are godheads (a god or goddess; a deity).
Here you are creating a cartoon, which is quite easily mocked. I was asking if belief in angels, etc. was cowardly, mad, and grasping by definition (in all cases). I don't think your cartoon argues that. Certainly some people have cartoonish beliefs, but all? How can we know this? How do we know it is not you who is imagining.These mythical creatures are also considered to bring their owners good fortune, as well as high status whilst in this life, and on top of that, everlasting life in these creature’s fantasy lands. Often, the owners of godheads also own a collection of fairies. They do this for safety reasons: say, when one of the godheads is becoming a bit boring, they can pull out the fairies to fill in.
What else are they?! Well, they could be actual appearances (aka things).Most people have one or more of these pets (what else are they?!),
Yada yada. I tire of hearing of these lowlife, but again, how do we know your cartoon fits all people. I don't believe it does. Do you think everyone who sees a ghost is imagining it? Are they in all cases 'grasping'?having inherited them from their parents. But quite a few people just happen upon them in their everyday scavenging for new entertainments. And then there are some who, feeling uncomfortably naked, grab hold of whatever creature is closest to hand, and make it there own. The creatures have no say in who becomes their owner, but that’s a natural consequence of being a fantasy.
Again, I do not like blanket statements, like ones that imply that belief can never be supported by or based upon evidence, that all belief is total fantasy.And as for a “belief in wisdom”, you’d have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to see how the concept ‘wisdom’ has, era upon era, been squished to a thin expanse by people wanting to use it to cover their barren souls. So successfully vague has the concept become, anyone can claim to own wisdom – or not own it – and still receive 100% product satisfaction.
These are unsupported assertions. You have given us no reason -- other than your own belief system -- to conclude that there are no fairies or deities existent in the world.It boils down to this, Carl, things are useful not for what they are, but for what they can be made into. Fairies exist because we want them to. Deities are our friends because we want them to be.
Truth encompasses those things, it doesn't deny them. But you are speaking metaphorically of the rose-colored eyes, again the cartoon. But the reality of truth and the possibility of fairies are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as you seem to make them out to be. A guru can point to the truth. Because you dislike gurus does not make them or what they can do into a fantasy in all cases. So stop generalizing according to your bias.The world is most plausibly round, but for some, they can glean more fun from a flat, or square, or triangular one. And ‘wisdom’, no longer the bloodied cold steeled sword of truth, it’s now a baby’s smile on a warm sunny day, birds singing overhead, and kittens playing nearby.
Having an experience (of fairies, or of eating a piece of bread, it doesn't matter) is just that. It doesn't add or subtract.Sue: It takes a moment of thought to see that believing things bring with them gain or loss is completely false.
Carl: Sorry, this sentence makes no sense to me.
Sue: Below you state that “Ultimately all is one”. The consequence of “all is one” is that you can’t add or subtract anything to or from anything. Can you see how that logically follows?
I reckon the same. That is why I say if I see a fairy, "I see a fairy." I refuse to call it a fantasy.Sue: Things are the same as you, so what can be gained or lost?
Carl: Ultimately all is one, yes. But what does that have to do with distinguishing between appearances?
Sue: “Distinguishing” them truthfully, perhaps? What do you reckon?
I agree, one could say that knowable absolute truths are beyond belief. This does not mean there is no useful function in any belief, i.e. hypothesis, theory, and working model based empirical evidence, i.e. experience.Sue: Is your argument (your belief) that there is no usefulness in any belief whatsoever, not even a belief in truth?
Carl: If something is true, you don’t need belief in it being true – it’s just true.
Or, they are able to guide themselves to greater and greater accuracy in thinking. Belief is not the automatic road to ruin you see it being. You are too dogmatic. And full of beliefs yourself, to come on so pious and strict.The reason for this is that the knowledge of truth brings with it neither loss nor gain. There is no status to be gained, or fun and entertainment to be gleaned. But with belief, people are able use it to bolster themselves – as I’ve already described.