The affirmative nature of femininity

[Gretchen]

K: David Quinn has compiled an excellent range on his website. It is well worth checking it out, also because it looks good.

P: I will at some point, but I am working on researching Kierkegaard and Aquinas for now...

What do you mean by "also because it looks good?"

K: I did not write the last sentence. I believe that is Kevin's.

Then that was the source of my confusion which led me to put the two together, which was not correct on my part.

K: I am not always capable of completing a discussion at a particular time. Our discussion ended because I had to deal with conflicts with Truth in myself first, before expressing anything further to others. This is usually why I stop communicating on the forum.

P: I quite understand.

K: I have not forgotten our discussion about God, and the meanings of Jesus's output (if my memory serves me right). I am not going to follow it up presently, but it will probably arise again later.

P: I'm sure it will.

Regards.

[Kelly Jones]

I wrote: David Quinn has compiled an excellent range on his website. It is well worth checking it out, also because it looks good.

Passthrough: What do you mean by "also because it looks good?"

David's compilations are the best library of scriptures I've come across yet. Not only because they're free if you have computer access, but because they're pure. They look great to me.

This is why it looks good:

- No advertising, including the egotistical signs that say, "I'm a great guru" or "This is my God".

- No clutter, or otherworldly graphics and quotes to diminish one's powers of cold, hard reasoning.

- The colours are easy on the eye, and remind one of lofty ideals, purity and calmness.

- The font is old-fashioned, reminding one of bygone eras when humanity was a bit more masculine, virtue-oriented, pioneering, and daring.

- Well-structured index with short, clear, pithy introductions.

- Minimum of scrolling.

- No animations or interactive games.

- Almost nothing can be purchased with money.

And best of all:

When one is reading a text, one simply keeps scrolling down, at one's own pace. One is faced with one's own abilities, and conscience, and never rescued by someone else's interfering ideas about one's capacity to choose to accept or reject the ideas.

One is alone with one's thoughts.


-

[Laird]

Laird: "it simply is". Well, OK, that's an answer of sorts, but it's not an explanation

Kevin: It's not logically possible for there to be an explanation for the Infinite because there is nothing other than itself. This is a purely logical truth which you can either see or you can't. It can't be further explained.

You seem to have run up against one of the limits of your logic. You either see that or you don't.

[Kevin Solway]

You seem to have run up against one of the limits of your logic. You either see that or you don't.

The only limitation of logic is that it is logic and not other than logic.

Likewise the limitation of truth is that it is truth and not other than truth.

You are thinking of these things as limitations because you would prefer to be able to bend them to suit yourself.

[Laird]

You are thinking of these things as limitations because you would prefer to be able to bend them to suit yourself.

You deny the limitations of your system because you fear to live without the crutch of its (artificial) absolute certainty, which gives you a sense of superiority over "deluded" people. No disrespect intended - I feel the pull of arrogance myself - it's cosy to think to oneself "boy, I know so much more than that poor soul". If it really were as simple as you make it out to be though, then the great minds of history would surely have hit upon it time and time again. Instead, we find a multitude of differing interpretations and philosophies. Where is the objective evidence of this absolute truth of yours? According to your philosophy even, it's all in your mind...

[Kevin Solway]

You deny the limitations of your system

You keep saying that it is limited, but you don't provide any reasons to back up your assertions.

Of course logic is limited to being logic. It can never be other than what it is. And truth is limited to being truth. But it is nonsense to say that these are "limitations".

you fear to live without the crutch of its (artificial) absolute certainty

How certain are you of that? 5% certain? 1% certain? Are you just blind fishing in the dark, and hoping to get attention?

That's what it looks like.

I feel the pull of arrogance myself

You are projecting your faults onto others because you don't want to feel inferior to others.

If it really were as simple as you make it out to be though, then the great minds of history would surely have hit upon it time and time again.

They have. Jesus, the Buddha, Nietzsche, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, Lao Tzu, Huang Po, to name just a few. All of these men have struck upon the very same truth.

Instead, we find a multitude of differing interpretations and philosophies.

That's got nothing to do with the realizations of great men.

Where is the objective evidence of this absolute truth of yours?

Do you think you can find something that is separate from your mind? If so, you haven't thought about it.

[Laird]

Laird: You deny the limitations of your system

Kevin: You keep saying that it is limited, but you don't provide any reasons to back up your assertions.

It seems to be a common tactic of yours to accuse me of not explaining my arguments, defining my terms or justifying myself, despite the extensive past efforts that I have put into doing so. I'm getting tired of playing that game, but I will do it again this time. My reason for thinking that your system is limited is that you recognise causes for all things and yet deny that this should apply to the entirety. You don't recognise that it is wondrous and mysterious that something can exist without a cause: you construct your logical system so that you can remain blind to this wonder, so that you can proclaim that "this mystery cannot logically be"... and yet it is.

Laird: you fear to live without the crutch of its (artificial) absolute certainty

Kevin: How certain are you of that? 5% certain? 1% certain?

If I were that uncertain, I would not have phrased it so assertively. It's more in the region of 80%, very roughly speaking.

Laird: I feel the pull of arrogance myself

Kevin: You are projecting your faults onto others because you don't want to feel inferior to others.

I'm calling it as I see it. I think that I know you well enough to take that right/responsibility on myself.

Laird: If it really were as simple as you make it out to be though, then the great minds of history would surely have hit upon it time and time again.

Kevin: They have. Jesus, the Buddha, Nietzsche, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, Lao Tzu, Huang Po, to name just a few. All of these men have struck upon the very same truth.

If they did see things in exactly the same way that you do, and if they were indeed teachers, and if what they were teaching is as simple as you claim it to be, then I would expect them to convey this as their primary message in down-to-earth, basic language.

So if you're willing to justify your view of these men then please show me some quotes from each of them that in simple language incontrovertibly present the teaching that the Totality should simply be accepted as-is, uncaused, and that all boundaries are created in the mind, and please explain how the context from which each quote is derived is "primary".

Laird: Where is the objective evidence of this absolute truth of yours?

Kevin: Do you think you can find something that is separate from your mind?

I'm not sure what you mean by "find". If you substitute the word "imagine", then my answer is yes.

[Leyla Shen]

Laird wrote:

A rock. I can experience it, but it seems highly likely to me that a rock has an independent existence even when I do not experience it.

All you are saying here is that your idea “rock” exists even when you are not experiencing an object rock (like tripping over one, or sitting on one, or watching one fall from a cliff) and this gives you the illusion that rocks exist independently of you.

That’s a certainty.

Much better than “it’s highly likely to me that some rock somewhere has an independent existence when I am not experiencing one.” So flippen what?!

[Leyla Shen]

Laird:

My take is that - as with true certainty and the feeling of certainty - we can divide consciousness up into two variations. "Intelligent consciousness" which is the ability to think that "I exist, I experience and I can affect things" and to explore the consequences of that realisation, and "pure consciousness" which is unadulterated awareness of self without any attendant thought. My goal when I meditate (which I don't do very often) is to attempt to reach the level of pure consciousness. I don't know whether it's possible but it's my goal anyway. So what I mean by "know" is to be in a state of pure consciousness. I hypothesise that there can be a state that is utterly still and disconnected from thinking but that is still a Laird-perspective or a Leyla-perspective. Perhaps the implication of this is that I believe in the concept of a soul. I think that I do.

OK. I think you're far from alone, on that score! And I appreciate the particular honesty, here. :)

To explore this idea further, in the context of hypothetical pure consciousness, what would it mean to "believe in the concept of a soul" given that state, hypothetically speaking, of course.

And, if you can imagine such a pure consciousness, how would you differentiate it from, or find it in conflict with, the notion of pure logic and certainty? In other words, what about thought itself exactly do you find fundamentally deluded/flawed?

Would a purely conscious individual never think again?

[Laird]

Laird: A rock. I can experience it, but it seems highly likely to me that a rock has an independent existence even when I do not experience it.

Leyla: All you are saying here is that your idea “rock” exists even when you are not experiencing an object rock (like tripping over one, or sitting on one, or watching one fall from a cliff)

I am talking about the existence of a specific and individual rock, not the generic idea of a rock.

and this gives you the illusion that rocks exist independently of you.

That’s a certainty.

You are branding the independent existence of objects as "certainly an illusion"? To me it is instead "a likely reality". So if I have understood you correctly, then please justify your certainty. Is it true certainty or merely the feeling of certainty? If you want to characterise it as "true certainty" then it had better be a pretty darn good justification Leyla.

Much better than “it’s highly likely to me that some rock somewhere has an independent existence when I am not experiencing one.” So flippen what?!

I miss your point. You write "so flippen what" as if to accept that what I write is common sense, yet earlier you seemed to deny the rock's independent existence as an illusion.

[Leyla Shen]

Wow. [scratches her head] This is REALLY hard!

[heads back to the drawing board...]

[Kevin Solway]

Laird: You deny the limitations of your system

Kevin: You keep saying that it is limited, but you don't provide any reasons to back up your assertions.

you recognise causes for all things and yet deny that this should apply to the entirety.

That's right. Logic dictates that that must be the case.

You don't recognise that it is wondrous and mysterious that something can exist without a cause

The Totality is not "something". You are thinking of it as a finite thing, which it isn't. You are misidentifying it.

and yet it is [a mystery].

Again, you are simply making statements without providing any reasons to back them up.

I have given you solid reasons why the Totality cannot be caused, but you haven't given me any good reason how it could be a mystery.

It's more in the region of 80%, very roughly speaking.

Again, that's a very low percentage of certainty, and not something you should be parading as though it were a certainty.

They have. Jesus, the Buddha, Nietzsche, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, Lao Tzu, Huang Po, to name just a few. All of these men have struck upon the very same truth.

If they did see things in exactly the same way that you do, and if they were indeed teachers, and if what they were teaching is as simple as you claim it to be, then I would expect them to convey this as their primary message in down-to-earth, basic language.

For the most part, they have done that.

If you want to read reasoned analysis rather than poetic expressions, read "Lucid exposition of the Middle Way" by Candrakirti.

So if you're willing to justify your view of these men then please show me some quotes from each of them that in simple language incontrovertibly present the teaching that the Totality should simply be accepted as-is, uncaused, and that all boundaries are created in the mind, and please explain how the context from which each quote is derived is "primary".

It's obvious to me that God, the Tao, Brahman, and Buddha-nature (emptiness) are all one and the same thing. If you are unable to see this yourself then quotes from various people won't help you, because you will still need to interpret the quotes.

Also, the "Totality" you are speaking of above is not the same thing that I am talking about, since you are conceiving of the "Totality" as a finite thing.

Laird: Where is the objective evidence of this absolute truth of yours?

Kevin: Do you think you can find something that is separate from your mind?

I'm not sure what you mean by "find". If you substitute the word "imagine", then my answer is yes.

Since your mind is part of the boundary-making process, you can't even imagine things separate from your mind.

[Laird]

I like your new location, Leyla. I try to live there most of the time too. :-)

[Laird]

Laird: you recognise causes for all things and yet deny that this should apply to the entirety.

Kevin: That's right. Logic dictates that that must be the case.

Not logic per-se, but logic as applied to your definitions. I can conceive of alternate definitions where logic breaks down. So what you have is an arbitrary logical system. But outside of logic it's not really so arbitrary - psychologically it has a rationale to it: your choices seem to actually be motivated by a desire to explain away mystery, rather than to engage with it.

Laird: You don't recognise that it is wondrous and mysterious that something can exist without a cause

Kevin: The Totality is not "something". You are thinking of it as a finite thing, which it isn't. You are misidentifying it.

You are applying an arbitrary definition of "universe" so that you can make limited claims with respect to it.

I have given you solid reasons why the Totality cannot be caused, but you haven't given me any good reason how it could be a mystery.

It's something that you either see or you can't see. It's partly a gut reaction. I find it hard to imagine that you don't have the same reaction, but perhaps you honestly don't. The best that I can explain it is in this sequence of thoughts that runs through my head:

The universe exists!
What!??!?
How can this be?
But it is...
But how can it be...
But it is!?...
But....well, I dunno, but it sure is one big exciting mystery...

The position that I see you take is this:
The universe exists!
What!??!?
How can this be?
Oh, nevermind, it doesn't matter anyway because if I define it to be the set of all causes such that the universe itself has no cause then I can just explain it away and forget about it... excitement, wonder and joy - who needs those?

You've stopped in the middle of the search to adopt a cold and clinical position just so that you don't have to accept uncertainty. OK, that might be satisfying enough for you, but it's not satisfying for me and I don't see why it should be satisfying for anyone else either. Why should people forgo the magic that a sense of wonder provides?

Kevin: They have. Jesus, the Buddha, Nietzsche, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, Lao Tzu, Huang Po, to name just a few. All of these men have struck upon the very same truth.

Laird: If they did see things in exactly the same way that you do, and if they were indeed teachers, and if what they were teaching is as simple as you claim it to be, then I would expect them to convey this as their primary message in down-to-earth, basic language.

Kevin: For the most part, they have done that.

So you say, however...

Laird: So if you're willing to justify your view of these men then please show me some quotes from each of them that in simple language incontrovertibly present the teaching that the Totality should simply be accepted as-is, uncaused, and that all boundaries are created in the mind, and please explain how the context from which each quote is derived is "primary".

Kevin: It's obvious to me that God, the Tao, Brahman, and Buddha-nature (emptiness) are all one and the same thing. If you are unable to see this yourself then quotes from various people won't help you, because you will still need to interpret the quotes.

...you don't seem to be willing to put your money where your mouth is. If the teachings were truly that simple then it would be very difficult for me to interpret them poorly.

Since your mind is part of the boundary-making process, you can't even imagine things separate from your mind.

Speak for yourself - what do you know of my imagination?

Edit: I see a strong possibility that boundaries are inherent, and not merely created by the mind. That possibility actually seems far more likely to me than the boundaries-are-all-in-the-mind scenario. If you want personal probability estimates, I'll go with a 95% vs 5%. I can accept that the mind plays a role in defining boundaries, but the *only* role? That I find very hard to swallow.

[Kevin Solway]

you recognise causes for all things and yet deny that this should apply to the entirety.

That's right. Logic dictates that that must be the case.

Not logic per-se, but logic as applied to your definitions.

Logic always applies to definitions.

So what you have is an arbitrary logical system.

How certain of that are you? 10%? 60%? 70%?

What you say there doesn't mean anything. Logic is most certainly not arbitrary. Logic is tied to definitions and is as far from arbitrary as can possibly be.

to explain away mystery

Again, you keep stating that there is a mystery but don't provide any reasons for its possibility.

You are applying an arbitrary definition of "universe" so that you can make limited claims with respect to it.

I am making a definition that "The All" means "All". That's not "arbitrary".

I have given you solid reasons why the Totality cannot be caused, but you haven't given me any good reason how it could be a mystery.

It's partly a gut reaction.

Any why do you think your "gut reaction" is not just ego-reaction, or emotion-reaction?

That's what it looks like it is.

"Gut reaction" isn't good enough. You can't have discussions based on your "gut reaction". You need to clarify your ideas.

I find it hard to imagine that you don't have the same reaction, but perhaps you honestly don't.

I certainly don't. The idea of conceiving of the Totality as being "mysterious" is repulsive to me because it is a murdering of truth.

But it is...

You don't know what you mean by "it".

You just have a vague idea. That's why you "dunno".

But....well, I dunno, but it sure is one big exciting mystery...

That's the whole problem. You are "sure" without reason, and that is a false certainty.

The position that I see you take is this:
The universe exists!
What!??!?
How can this be?

That's your mistake. I don't ask that last question, because I know what the All is.

you don't have to accept uncertainty.

Uncertainty about what? I am uncertain about things I am uncertain about. But I'm not necessarily uncertain about the things that you are uncertain about.

Why should people forgo the magic that a sense of wonder provides?

They would only forego these things if they value truth above all things.

If the teachings were truly that simple then it would be very difficult for me to interpret them poorly.

You have too high an opinion of yourself.

You are basically saying that believe that you can understand the words of the wisest and greatest geniuses ever to have walked the earth.

This you cannot do in your current condition.

Here is a teaching from Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas:

"It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the All. From Me did the All come forth, and unto Me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there."

These are simple words, but you are not currently capable of understanding them.

[Laird]

Laird: So what you have is an arbitrary logical system.

Kevin: How certain of that are you? 10%? 60%? 70%?

Very roughly: 70%.

Logic is most certainly not arbitrary. Logic is tied to definitions and is as far from arbitrary as can possibly be.

The purpose of your logical system is to describe reality. The accuracy with which it does this lies in two factors:
* the accuracy with which your definitions reflect reality
* the power of logic to describe reality.

So I ask you:

How certain are you that your definitions are the most accurate reflections of reality that are possible? 10%? 60%? 70%?

How certain are you that logic has the power to fully describe reality? 10%? 60%? 70%?

I'll add that I don't really have much of a quibble with your definitions: I can't at this point think of better ones. What I do find arbitrary is the imposition of a special status to "everything" such that we do not place the same expectations on it as on "every thing": where did this special status come from? Is it part of "absolute truth"?

Kevin: I have given you solid reasons why the Totality cannot be caused, but you haven't given me any good reason how it could be a mystery.

Laird: It's partly a gut reaction.

Kevin: Any why do you think your "gut reaction" is not just ego-reaction, or emotion-reaction?

Those terms aren't part of my usual lexicon so I'm not quite sure how to respond - what I'll do is clarify what I meant by "gut reaction". I mean that it is part of my basic position in, and response to, life, which I use reason and communication to explain but which is beyond those techniques.

Laird: The position that I see you take is this:
The universe exists!
What!??!?
How can this be?

Kevin: That's your mistake. I don't ask that last question, because I know what the All is.

You have never asked that question, not even prior to firming your position?

Laird: If the teachings were truly that simple then it would be very difficult for me to interpret them poorly.

Kevin: You are basically saying that believe that you can understand the words of the wisest and greatest geniuses ever to have walked the earth.

I am saying that if their message is as simple as you claim it to be, and if they truly were that wise and great, then they would have communicated it in a way that anyone can understand - me included. What point would they have in communicating it if they did not expect people to understand them?

[Laird]

[W]hat I meant by a logical conclusion is that…where we either agree OR agree to disagree.

OK, cool. I like your open-mindedness, balance and humility, passthrough. I hope that we can find mostly agreement although I suspect that there will be areas where I will decide that you are going beyond my level of commitment and faith.

Time on the inside is relevant to us for the purpose of creating order out of events…but is time something that really matters to the Creator?

Well it must matter to the extent that our Creator is involved with us within time by triggering our consciences/inner voices as you seem to believe our Creator does. I will refer back to this comment later in the post.

By the way, are you comfortable applying the masculine pronoun to God? I have strenuously avoided using a pronoun at all, knowing that some women find the traditional masculine gender to be offensive. I'd really like it if English had a gender-neutral pronoun. Robert Heinlein (I think, although I may be misremembering who it was) in one of his science fiction novels used 'e' as a substitute for both 'she' and 'he'. It seems workable to me. Shall we adopt that as our pronoun for God?

There is the physical (body) that is finite, and the spiritual (soul) that is infinite. The “God stuff” is this spiritual for the physical passes away.

So then how would you characterise the physical, if not as "God stuff" - it is also derived from God, so would you call it "God's non-primary manifestation"? I will continue this point below.

If you choose the physical over the spiritual, you will pass away. Matt Gregory had a really good explanation regarding questions I posed on Kant and his noumenal/phenomenal world regarding a painting in a museum that may be somewhat relevant. You might like to read it.

In that thread you write:

In the most basic explanation, if God is First Cause, he is both matter and consciousness. If God created us, we are then made with the same stuff. God is noumenal because God created reality.

You seem to be expressing a slightly different position in that quote than you are now - now you make a distinction betweeen "physical" and "spiritual". In that quote you seem to make less distinction. And this distinction is what troubles me most about your position. You take away the Devil and any opposition to God, and you retain God as first and only cause. So then this distinction seems to me to be quite artificial. There is only God and what God creates; why should we view what he creates (the physical) as in some sense unworthy - surely, as the ultimate good force, God can create only good things?

Well, it sounds kind of strange put this way, but why don’t we attach a word to it…I am given awareness of what I have done OR not done. Strictly ethical but non-theistic people could state that it is just my own personal conscience, but I believe it to be God.

It's here where you seem to require that God have a temporal nature - that God inserts awareness/conscience into people at various times. This is what I referred to up the top where you asked whether time matters to God.

God doesn’t have a perspective, he just IS.

I prefer: God is all perspectives.

Adam and Eve are in this fabulous place where all their needs are met and they are fully conscious of God. But Eve is tempted by the world. In this light, we are given all of our needs, but being given this gift of reason, the ability to know good from evil, unlike animals and other living or unliving items in nature, she wanted to make herself god…she chose the physical over the spiritual.

I thought that you had discarded the notion of evil, and yet here you raise it. Here is the difficulty that I have with your model: as I understand it, you claim that God is absolutely good, that God is the cause of everything, and that there is no opposing force that we might refer to as Satan. So then where does evil come from? It seems to have no source - I am again confronted with the paradox of uncausedness. Can you resolve it for me?

All things are inherently good, it is what we do with them that makes them not good…and those not good things are illusory, finite and lead to death.

I still don't see how anything can be "not good" given that all things spring from a completely good source. The Jehovah's Witnesses who visit of a Monday morning present similar reasoning to me - they believe in the Devil but they believe that he is part of God's creation and that he followed the temptation in his heart and lost his original perfection. I am just as perplexed about how imperfection can arise out of utter perfection as I am about how evil ("not good") can arise out of utter goodness.

I know of a solution to this problem, but I want to find out how you resolve it before discussing my own view.

The properties of the soul – reason

So then the soul is partly physical? The findings of science seem to indicate that reason is part of the processes of the physical brain. Or do you reject that this is an implication of science? It seems that you must, because you seem to answer my first question in the negative by writing that "[t]he physical body is a machine, the soul is life…essence."

[The soul is] God’s connection to us as beings.

This seems to me to be a pretty supportable property of a soul - we can agree on this.

Not emotion. Memory…that may be a part body part soul type of thing…I’ll have to think on that one a bit because memory fades and becomes impeded by age, and yet, memory is a function of conscience – a reminder to consider when making choices.

I'll be interested to know what conclusions you come to after thinking on this topic because I am also struggling with the definition and properties of the soul.

Eve chose the finite world….NOT GOD. If you choose the world over God, you have NO spiritual life, therefore you become finite, you die and that is the end.

I'm not sure if I'm getting repetitive here, but couldn't you view it that to choose the "finite" world is spiritually acceptable because it is part of God's perfection?

Laird: Would you accept this phrasing?: God expects us to do our best but to believe that whatever level we achieve God will find a way to make it perfect anyway?

passthrough: [...] Anyhow, my husband said something that was interesting – that is, God does not play favorites.

I would hope that God has mercy as well as justice, for one cannot be without the other…but he also showed through Jesus Christ what he expects. Did Jesus Christ throw the stone at the adulteress? No…but what did he ask her to do? Go and SIN NO MORE.

I'm not sure whether that's a yes, a no or a maybe in answer to my question... :-)

Laird: I’m still not sure exactly what you think it means to “accept God as the absolute truth” - still don’t have any idea of the practical consequences beyond what you’ve described as God countering us in which the choice is illusory: It has no practical consequences.

passthrough: I am not sure I am getting what you are seeking. I wish I could define this, but I think that another member, whose name escapes me and who hasn’t been on in awhile, called it the dark abyss.

What I mean is this: you decide to accept God as absolute truth. So now what are the consequences of that decision? I have gathered from elsewhere that you believe that one consequence is that you inherit eternal life. Are there any other consequences - perhaps more mundane, wordly consequences such as being better spiritually supported? You seem to suggest this when you write "I suppose the practical consequences that I am speaking about are those of the Holy Spirit".

What if you became consumed with what he caused rather than the Causer himself?

And how are we to consume ourselves in the Causer when - as you have previously written - we have very little understanding of what exactly this Causer is? Perhaps: the Causer provides us with so little understanding so that we will be so mystified that we will consume ourselves in the search for understanding. If you accept this answer, then would you also accept that spirituality is in part a quest for understanding?

It is the same type of love Jesus Christ offered that adulteress…as my husband said: God does not play favorites, as Kevin said: the sun rises and falls on the good and the bad, and as Kierkegaard said: you have to choose. And if you feel you are facing an abyss, welcome to my world.

That abyss being the fear of not being able to love as God intends you to?

So we are back to the eternal question: what is the purpose of life…which is answered with to know, love and serve God…perhaps the meaning is simply that – TO LIVE IN HIM…as a manifestation of him in physical form.

I like the way you put that.

I hope you guys [Kevin and Laird] get along in real-life and avoid fisticuffs over religious theory.

Do either of us seem like the physically aggressive type? I don't think it's in our natures. We get on well in real life.

Based on your disdain with the theory, perhaps I do not understand it as well as I thought …although he and I discussed it at length and it did not seem as egregious as you make it out to be…that is, until he gets to the genderizing part, then he loses my support.

Oh, I don't think that their theories are completely baseless. I just don't put as much value on differentiating levels of consciousness as the rational infinitists do. I prefer to view all people as basically good and doing the best that they can with what they've got. If we can help each other to do better then that's part of the joy and the process of life. I don't think that we are too far apart on that idea.

[Kevin Solway]

Laird: So what you have is an arbitrary logical system.

Kevin: How certain of that are you? 10%? 60%? 70%?

Very roughly: 70%.

That is insignificant amount in my view. You are only guessing.

Logic is most certainly not arbitrary. Logic is tied to definitions and is as far from arbitrary as can possibly be.

The purpose of your logical system is to describe reality.

That is an extremely arrogant claim. How certain are you of that? 50%? 70%?

Logic does not describe reality, but reflects it.

How certain are you that your definitions are the most accurate reflections of reality that are possible?

I am 100% certain that my definition of "The All" accurately reflects the All.

How certain are you that logic has the power to fully describe reality.

Logic does not describe reality. The idea that logic describes reality is your own idea.

I'll add that I don't really have much of a quibble with your definitions: I can't at this point think of better ones. What I do find arbitrary is the imposition of a special status to "everything" such that we do not place the same expectations on it as on "every thing": where did this special status come from?

What gives it a special status is that it is Infinite.

Is it part of "absolute truth"?

What is this "it" you are talking about? You are not clear about what you are talking about.

If you are saying "Is reality reality?". Yes it is.

I use reason and communication to explain

You haven't used reason and communication to explain why you think the All is mysterious. All you've said is that you have a "gut feeling". And that is no basis for any kind of discussion.

Laird: The position that I see you take is this:
The universe exists!
What!??!?
How can this be?

Kevin: That's your mistake. I don't ask that last question, because I know what the All is.

You have never asked that question, not even prior to firming your position?

Before I understood what the All was, I asked that question.

I am saying that if their message is as simple as you claim it to be, and if they truly were that wise and great, then they would have communicated it in a way that anyone can understand - me included.

You are coming out with an unending stream of extremely egotistical and arrogant claims about things of which you know nothing.

Jesus once said, "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear", because wisdom cannot be communicated to everyone - if anyone at all.

What point would they have in communicating it if they did not expect people to understand them?

Have you read your Bible? I think not.

"Listen! A farmer went out to plant some seeds. As he scattered them across his field, some seeds fell on a footpath, and the birds came and ate them. Other seeds fell on shallow soil with underlying rock. The seeds sprouted quickly because the soil was shallow. But the plants soon wilted under the hot sun, and since they didn't have deep roots, they died. Other seeds fell among thorns that grew up and choked out the tender plants. Still other seeds fell on fertile soil, and they produced a crop that was thirty, sixty, and even a hundred times as much as had been planted! Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand."

[Laird]

Laird: So what you have is an arbitrary logical system.

Kevin: How certain of that are you? 10%? 60%? 70%?

Laird: Very roughly: 70%.

Kevin: That is insignificant amount in my view. You are only guessing.

Implication being that when I'm not 100% sure of something I should keep my mouth shut?

It's lucky then that I don't let you tell me what to do or we wouldn't be able to engage each other in this debate.

Kevin: Logic is most certainly not arbitrary. Logic is tied to definitions and is as far from arbitrary as can possibly be.

Laird: The purpose of your logical system is to describe reality.

Kevin: That is an extremely arrogant claim.

It can be a fun word to throw around, that: arrogant.

You seem to be having a little bit too much fun throwing it around. There's a difference between confidence and arrogance.

Logic does not describe reality, but reflects it.

I'm perfectly happy with that rephrasing.

Laird: How certain are you that your definitions are the most accurate reflections of reality that are possible?

Kevin: I am 100% certain that my definition of "The All" accurately reflects the All.

I didn't ask you about one of your definitions, I asked you about all of them: how certain are you that every component definition of your absolute truth accurately reflects reality? 10%? 60%? 70%?

Laird: How certain are you that logic has the power to fully describe reality?

Kevin: Logic does not describe reality. The idea that logic describes reality is your own idea.

OK, so I'll rephrase it then using your preferred term, "reflects":

How certain are you that logic has the power to fully reflect reality? 10%? 60%? 70%?

Laird: I'll add that I don't really have much of a quibble with your definitions: I can't at this point think of better ones. What I do find arbitrary is the imposition of a special status to "everything" such that we do not place the same expectations on it as on "every thing": where did this special status come from?

Kevin: What gives it a special status is that it is Infinite.

So how do you get from "is Infinite" to "is no longer subject to the expectations of causality"?

Laird: Is it part of "absolute truth"?

Kevin: What is this "it" you are talking about?

By "it" I mean "the special status that you accord to 'everything'".

Laird: The position that I see you take is this:
The universe exists!
What!??!?
How can this be?

Kevin: That's your mistake. I don't ask that last question, because I know what the All is.

Laird: You have never asked that question, not even prior to firming your position?

Kevin: Before I understood what the All was, I asked that question.

So then it is valid where I placed it: it is part of the path that you took to arrive at your position. I made no mistake: you did ask that question, even if you no longer do.

You are coming out with an unending stream of extremely egotistical and arrogant claims about things of which you know nothing.

It can be a lot of fun to throw particular words at people when you know that they're sensitive to them, can't it?

Laird: What point would they have in communicating it if they did not expect people to understand them?

Kevin: [from the Bible] "Listen! A farmer went out to plant some seeds. As he scattered them across his field, some seeds fell on a footpath, and the birds came and ate them. Other seeds fell on shallow soil with underlying rock. The seeds sprouted quickly because the soil was shallow. But the plants soon wilted under the hot sun, and since they didn't have deep roots, they died. Other seeds fell among thorns that grew up and choked out the tender plants. Still other seeds fell on fertile soil, and they produced a crop that was thirty, sixty, and even a hundred times as much as had been planted! Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand."

And what type of ground do you think that I am?

[Kevin Solway]

Implication being that when I'm not 100% sure of something I should keep my mouth shut?

No. The implication being that if you want to make confident claims you need to be a lot more sure than just 70%.

I asked you about all of them: how certain are you that every component definition of your absolute truth accurately reflects reality?

Your question doesn't make any sense, so I can't answer it. I have no idea what you mean by "every component definition of your absolute truth".

Do you even know what my absolute truth is? I don't think so.

How certain are you that logic has the power to fully reflect reality?

I don't know what you mean by "reality", so I can't answer your question. I don't believe you know what "reality" is to be asking the question in the first place.

If you understood what reality was, then you would know absolutely that logic perfectly reflects reality.

What gives it a special status is that it is Infinite.

So how do you get from "is Infinite" to "is no longer subject to the expectations of causality"?

We've been over this before. All finite things are caused since there are things other than themselves. But the Infinite is not caused, since there is nothing other than itself.

Laird: Is it part of "absolute truth"?

Kevin: What is this "it" you are talking about?

By "it" I mean "the special status that you accord to 'everything'".

It's not clear what you mean by "absolute truth".

There are many absolute truths. All logical truths are absolute.

It is an absolute Truth that the All is Infinite. It is a logical truth.

How can this be?

Before I understood what the All was, I asked that question.

So then it is valid where I placed it: it is part of the path that you took to arrive at your position.

No, it is not part of the path that took me to my current position. It was a blind alley constructed out of delusion.

And what type of ground do you think that I am?

At the moment you are shallow soil. But you may be different in the future.

[Laird]

Laird: I asked you about all of them: how certain are you that every component definition of your absolute truth accurately reflects reality?

Kevin: Your question doesn't make any sense, so I can't answer it. I have no idea what you mean by "every component definition of your absolute truth".

So it's fair game for you to try to pin me down to a firm definition every time I raise a word that you're uncomfortable with (e.g. love) but when I ask you how confident you are in your own definitions you slip, twist, turn and do your very best to avoid the question? You claim to know absolute truth: why then are you so keen to avoid declaring 100% certainty in your definitions?

Laird: How certain are you that logic has the power to fully reflect reality?

Kevin: I don't know what you mean by "reality", so I can't answer your question.

More evasiveness...

So if you don't know what I mean by "reality", then surely you can go by what you mean? Oh, hang on, you do!:

If you understood what reality was, then you would know absolutely that logic perfectly reflects reality.

OK, so that looks to me like a 100% certain. But I don't want to make assumptions, I want to hear it straight from the horse's mouth. So I'll ask you again, using your own definition of "reality", how certain are you that logic has the power to fully reflect reality? 10%? 60%? 70%? 100%?

Kevin: What gives it a special status is that it is Infinite.

Laird: So how do you get from "is Infinite" to "is no longer subject to the expectations of causality"?

Kevin: We've been over this before. All finite things are caused since there are things other than themselves. But the Infinite is not caused, since there is nothing other than itself.

So that's your conclusion, but I'm more interested in your expectation. I want to know whether you expect that it would be subject to causality. And if not, then why not?

Laird: Is it part of "absolute truth"?

Kevin: What is this "it" you are talking about?

Laird: By "it" I mean "the special status that you accord to 'everything'".

Kevin: It's not clear what you mean by "absolute truth".

Is it clear what you mean by "absolute truth"?

There are many absolute truths. All logical truths are absolute.

How certain are you of that? 10%? 60%? 70%?

It is an absolute Truth that the All is Infinite. It is a logical truth.

Is that because you can't imagine it to be any other way?

[Kevin Solway]

when I ask you how confident you are in your own definitions

I really don't know what question you are asking, so I can't answer your question. Confident in what respect?

If a person defines the number two to be one more than the number one, what does it mean to ask them whether they are confident in their definition?

It is a meaningless question.

If you understood what reality was, then you would know absolutely that logic perfectly reflects reality.

OK, so that looks to me like a 100% certain.

Yes, that's why I used the word "absolutely".

All finite things are caused since there are things other than themselves. But the Infinite is not caused, since there is nothing other than itself.

So that's your conclusion, but I'm more interested in your expectation. I want to know whether you expect that it would be subject to causality. And if not, then why not?

No, of course I don't expect it to be subject to causality, for the reason that I know it is Infinite.

Would you expect the number one to be something other than the number one?

All logical truths are absolute.

How certain are you of that? 10%? 60%? 70%?

100%

It is an absolute Truth that the All is Infinite. It is a logical truth.

Is that because you can't imagine it to be any other way?

No. It is so because there can be no other way than the logical way.

[Laird]

Laird: when I ask you how confident you are in your own definitions

Kevin: I really don't know what question you are asking, so I can't answer your question. Confident in what respect?

I'd actually rather ask you about your certainty than your confidence, since that's the term in question. It's a fairly straightforward question and you seem very keen to avoid it:

In your description of absolute truth, you define various terms. One of those is "Totality". Another is "thing". Etc. I'm simply asking: how certain are you that each and every one of those definitions accurately reflects reality? In percentage terms.

I want to know how absolutely certain you are of your absolute truth.

If a person defines the number two to be one more than the number one, what does it mean to ask them whether they are confident in their definition?

It means: "do you think that there is some part of reality that this definition closely (or perfectly) corresponds to?"

Kevin: If you understood what reality was, then you would know absolutely that logic perfectly reflects reality.

Laird: OK, so that looks to me like a 100% certain.

Kevin: Yes, that's why I used the word "absolutely".

Great, so you've got a 100% absolute certainty that logic is the one true path. So then how did you arrive at that certainty?

Kevin: All finite things are caused since there are things other than themselves. But the Infinite is not caused, since there is nothing other than itself.

Laird: So that's your conclusion, but I'm more interested in your expectation. I want to know whether you expect that it would be subject to causality. And if not, then why not?

Kevin: No, of course I don't expect it to be subject to causality, for the reason that I know it is Infinite.

Earlier you wrote that "Before I understood what the All was, I asked that question ['How can this be?']". At one point then, you did expect it to be subject to causality. So, tying in with my earlier question as to how you arrived at the conclusion that logic is the only way to determine absolute truth, how did you determine which out of expectation and logical conclusion was more absolutely important?

I ask this because to me, most expectations are based on observation of reality. I expect that the sun will rise in the morning. I expect that when I drop an object it will fall. So I want to know why your original expectation that the universe is subject to causality should not be preeminent over your later logical system that describes that universe - why should you not build your logical system to maintain this expectation-based-on-observation rather than to destroy it?

Kevin: It is an absolute Truth that the All is Infinite. It is a logical truth.

Laird: Is that because you can't imagine it to be any other way?

Kevin: No. It is so because there can be no other way than the logical way.

I can imagine a logical system where the All is not infinite.

[Gretchen]

Leyla:Would a purely conscious individual never think again?

A profound question...perhaps there wouldn’t be a need...you would live truth and would no longer have to analyze your motives and intent...or others for that matter. If you acquired this pure consciousness...it would be of God. Does God think? (A rhetorical question)

Aquinas was a very logical philosopher and theologian. He was said to have had a mystical experience in Mass one day and never wrote again because what was revealed showed all his work to be as straw. If one of the greatest philosophers would dash his theories on a revelation, then he is either delusional or he went past what logic and reason offers and found something better.

We will never know unless and until we venture on that path challenging what we believe...David and Kevin feel they have found that answer...but we cannot hang off of their discovery like a parasite accepting its hosts body as that of its own...we have to find it alone, or it is meaningless...at least that is what I have come to find. But to those who have found the truth, it is a natural inclination to want to understand it by those who don't....but sometimes one has to take in what is said and reflect for awhile....all great things come but at a sacrifice of other ideas...some would call delusions.

[Kevin Solway]

In your description of absolute truth, you define various terms. One of those is "Totality". Another is "thing". Etc. I'm simply asking: how certain are you that each and every one of those definitions accurately reflects reality? In percentage terms.

100%

If a person defines the number two to be one more than the number one, what does it mean to ask them whether they are confident in their definition?

It means: "do you think that there is some part of reality that this definition closely (or perfectly) corresponds to?"

The question is wrongly asked, because you are assuming that there is a reality independent of thought, and which thought corresponds to. There isn't.

So then how did you arrive at that certainty?

The same way that I arrive at the certainty that I am having experiences.

how did you determine which out of expectation and logical conclusion was more absolutely important?

When I realized that the expectation was a delusion it lost all importance because I valued truth more highly than untruth.

So I want to know why your original expectation that the universe is subject to causality should not be preeminent over your later logical system that describes that universe

I've already explained this. When I realized that the Universe was Infinite, rather than finite, the question of it being subject to causality disappeared, for obvious reasons.

why should you not build your logical system to maintain this expectation-based-on-observation rather than to destroy it?

I observe that that which is Infinite cannot be caused.

I can imagine a logical system where the All is not infinite.

Then you would be using a different definition of "the All". There would be things other and apart from your "All".