Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Steven
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:14 pm

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by Steven »

David Quinn wrote:The human race, all of them his spiritual children.

-
None of us has the right to decide the lives of others, only to live as best as we think we can.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by David Quinn »

Nonetheless, a Buddha can exercise his right to guide people spiritually, much in the manner of a father guiding his children in their growing up.

-
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by Jason »

Steven wrote: None of us has the right to decide the lives of others
Why?
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by Carl G »

Do any of us have any rights at all?
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
brad walker
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:49 am
Location: be an eye

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by brad walker »

mikiel wrote:I've joked about Buddha's big belly in refence to enjoying eating. "What is over-eating?" is not for you to judge.
Buddha wasn't fat. The "fat Buddha" is something entirely else.
mikiel
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:27 am

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by mikiel »

David Quinn wrote:
mikiel wrote: I spend 1/24th of my time in meditation. You could consider this such a "cow-like" bliss out, but it is actually sitting in/as consciuousness itself transcending all content for an hour a day.

Why would an I-less individual need to meditate?

Why do you assume it is a "need?" I don't "need" to enjoy the serene beauty of nature at our Trust either but it is just part of life's quite interludes. It ain't all busy-ness as usual.
Non-dual awareness includes both transcendence and active engagement. 1/24 of my time in "blissed out" transcendence is not a bad balance, and I have a huge abundance of energy for the projects mentioned above the rest of my time not sleeping.


Or to use a Zen phrase, why paint legs on a snake?

You have no clue to the true nature of transcendence, as evident in your repeated insults about it being a "cow-like" blissing out. Try "Consciousness Without an Object" (Franklin Merrell-Wolff) if you have any interest, as a philosopher of deepening your understanding of consciousness as it transcends content.
The rest of my non-sleep time is actively engaged in service and celebrating life.
I founded the Center for Conscious Unity soon after my awakening and have since led a meditation circle and dialogue on enlightenment there.
As I've said I was made First Trustee of the 80 acre land trust on which I built the Center, and have been literally building community in harmony with God/Nature there since. (It's off-grid which is why I'm absent from cyberspace for days at a time.)
Sounds idyllic.

It is a case of living in harmony with God-manifesting-as-Nature and as unconditionally loving relationships.There is a lot of hard work involved, as we are "building from scratch." But it is all a labor of love.

I just finished fencing in a half acre garden space (against the many deer on the trust) and hauled fallen logs out of the forest, split them into half rounds and made raised beds out of them. Hauled organic topsoil and filled them yesterday. I also work up a good sweat as a master stone mason. My professional job is more sedentary, as a transpersonal counselor (14 yrs now after 8 as a crisis counselor)... this in conjunction with the enlightenment dialogue mentioned above, which, by itself is free, as is the meditation circle. This by way of a glimpse into my actual life... since you make false assumptions about it... hardly a cow-like bliss-out.
I'm not sure that the revelation that you teach people to tap into their own inner states of cow-like bliss is a credible response to my criticisms.

You are extremely judgemental with absolutely no understanding of the reality you are judging.... Transcendence, for instance as in balance with productive activity.... as above.

But "lifestyle" has very little to do with enlightenment, short of basic intent to do no harm and serve where the opportunity arises.

Teaching people to renunciate renunciation harms those who would otherwise enjoy the enlightened fruits of renunciation.

A repeat from one of my previous posts:
---------
Who do you think renounces after the "me" illusion is gone? The separate "I" is and always has been an illusion. Awakening is exactly as from a dream... = that illusion. No renunciation involved, anymore that the one awakening "renounces" the dream. One just realizes that it was a dream... not 'waking reality.'
---------


Have no fear, you are constantly causing harm of one sort or another in everything that you do. The same applies to all of us.

You are welcome to your negative philosophy, but I don't share it. You can define harm in a way that makes your statement true for you, but I speak of ahimsa as *intent* to do as little harm as possible. The positive statement is to do as much "good" as possible, and You may now have a better idea what this means in my "real life."

My getting drunk days are over, for instance, but I still enjoy the usual pleasures of life. (The "I" here is the universal Identity as manifest and living in/as/through "this one.") I've mentioned a few of these ongoing pleasures, but I have no need to convince you that an ascetic life is not the only life in the Awakened state. I've joked about Buddha's big belly in refence to enjoying eating.

It is interesting that the Buddha named his son "Bondage". That was before he upped and left his family in search of enlightenment. He never went back to them either, even after his enlightenment.
So what about the standard image of the big-bellied Buddha and the question of over-eating... and your setting yourself up as judge and jury as to what "over"- anything is?

-
mikiel
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by David Quinn »

mikiel wrote:
David Quinn wrote: Why would an I-less individual need to meditate?
Why do you assume it is a "need?" I don't "need" to enjoy the serene beauty of nature at our Trust either but it is just part of life's quite interludes. It ain't all busy-ness as usual.
Non-dual awareness includes both transcendence and active engagement. 1/24 of my time in "blissed out" transcendence is not a bad balance, and I have a huge abundance of energy for the projects mentioned above the rest of my time not sleeping.


Or to use a Zen phrase, why paint legs on a snake?

You have no clue to the true nature of transcendence, as evident in your repeated insults about it being a "cow-like" blissing out. Try "Consciousness Without an Object" (Franklin Merrell-Wolff) if you have any interest, as a philosopher of deepening your understanding of consciousness as it transcends content.
When a cow chews away on its cud and stares vacantly across a field, one wonders if there is anything going on in its mind at all. It too seems to have transcended all mental content.

Isn't your sitting down in mediation simply a case of retrogressing back into cow-hood? Shouldn't it be called retrogression, rather than transcendence?

Personally, I can't consider any sort of mental or spiritual attainment as being worth much if it can't be fully experienced in every aspect of one's existence.

A wise person is in full mediation in his every waking moment, no matter what he is doing - walking, sitting, eating, talking, etc. His mind is fully opened to the nature of God. He doesn't need to perform the contrived activity of sitting down and concentrating his attention away from mental content. His mental content is fully a part of God. It never obscures his God-consciousness. He is already there, all the time.

If one has to sit down for an hour a day and try to find God, then what does it say about the other 23 hours of one's day?

mikiel wrote:
I'm not sure that the revelation that you teach people to tap into their own inner states of cow-like bliss is a credible response to my criticisms.
You are extremely judgemental with absolutely no understanding of the reality you are judging.... Transcendence, for instance as in balance with productive activity.... as above.

As I say, I don't really believe in your transcendence. I know that you experience something very interesting in your meditations, but it cannot be anything other than an altered state of consciousness. It is a case of altering consciousness away from normal consciousness. True wisdom, on the other hand, doesn't depend on any particular form of consciousness. It is fully present in all forms of a wise man's consciousness - both normal and altered.

If God can be forgotten simply by getting up from a sitting position, then it is a sign that He isn't enmeshed in your life thoroughly enough.

mikiel wrote:
Teaching people to renunciate renunciation harms those who would otherwise enjoy the enlightened fruits of renunciation.
A repeat from one of my previous posts:
---------
Who do you think renounces after the "me" illusion is gone? The separate "I" is and always has been an illusion. Awakening is exactly as from a dream... = that illusion. No renunciation involved, anymore that the one awakening "renounces" the dream. One just realizes that it was a dream... not 'waking reality.'
---------

The brain and its decision-making faculties are still as active ever after awakening. As soon as one makes a decision of any sort - either trivial or profound - one is choosing one course of action and renouncing the rest.

It is inescapable.

No one can put an end to renunciation. Not even a Buddha can. All you can do is block it out and pretend it is not happening - which obviously would be foolish. The real question is not whether renunciation can be abandoned (as this is impossible), but what exactly should be renunciated - both before awakening and after.

mikiel wrote:
Have no fear, you are constantly causing harm of one sort or another in everything that you do. The same applies to all of us.
You are welcome to your negative philosophy, but I don't share it. You can define harm in a way that makes your statement true for you, but I speak of ahimsa as *intent* to do as little harm as possible. The positive statement is to do as much "good" as possible, and You may now have a better idea what this means in my "real life."

Clothing your intentions in terms of "doing good" only serves to paper over the reality that your every action creates harm of one or sort or another. For example, your actions are doing harm to my cause of promoting wisdom. From my perspective, I don't really care whether you think are actions are "good" or not - they are still creating harm regardless. Islamic fundamentalists also believe that their actions are "good".


mikiel wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
It is interesting that the Buddha named his son "Bondage". That was before he upped and left his family in search of enlightenment. He never went back to them either, even after his enlightenment.

So what about the standard image of the big-bellied Buddha and the question of over-eating... and your setting yourself up as judge and jury as to what "over"- anything is?

As I understand it, the image of the fat Buddha is a metaphor, signifying his spiritual riches.

-
mikiel
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:27 am

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by mikiel »

Isn't your sitting down in mediation simply a case of retrogressing back into cow-hood? Shouldn't it be called retrogression, rather than transcendence?

Are you seriously disregarding sitting meditation as a "Path to Enlightenment" and an ongoing practice after enlightenment?" You are Way more narrow minded and negatively judgemental, not to mention uninformed... oops, I just did... than I ever imagined.

Personally, I can't consider any sort of mental or spiritual attainment as being worth much if it can't be fully experienced in every aspect of one's existence.

You really don't listen/comprehend well. I have said many times that enlightenment is transcendence of the illusion of "personal identity" into God Consciousness, everyones actual Identity, and that God and Nature ... the transcendental (consciousness) and the manifest (world/cosmos and all *content* of consciousness) are One... not two, non-dual, etc. You are totally spiritually deaf! I live God consciousness, both in transcendence (at Source, prior to manifestation and in everyday life, full time... the fruits of which I have recently mentioned just in contrast to your very silly characterization of my life and teaching as "cow-like blissing out."

A wise person is in full mediation in his every waking moment, no matter what he is doing - walking, sitting, eating, talking, etc. His mind is fully opened to the nature of God. He doesn't need to perform the contrived activity of sitting down and concentrating his attention away from mental content. His mental content is fully a part of God. It never obscures his God-consciousness. He is already there, all the time.

I am God expressing/manifesting locally as this person, this life, both at rest/transcendence and in all activity. You have no clue! This is the meaning of enlightenment, not your very narrowly restricted model of the ascetic renunciate.

If one has to sit down for an hour a day and try to find God, then what does it say about the other 23 hours of one's day?

You ignore what I've said. I "found God" on 4/4/94, and S/He never went away... being Omnipresent and All. One doesn't "have to" take a break from the busy-ness of doing to sit still and enjoy just *being.* It is however a very enjoyable option. As I've said it had been part of my life for 25 yrs prior to awakening, and there is no reason to abandon this blissful transcendence of activity and enjoy absolute stillness for an hour a day since "finding God.' This is all judgement crap in your own personal programing.

'As I say, I don't really believe in your transcendence. I know that you experience something very interesting in your meditations, but it cannot be anything other than an altered state of consciousness. It is a case of altering consciousness away from normal consciousness. True wisdom, on the other hand, doesn't depend on any particular form of consciousness. It is fully present in all forms of a wise man's consciousness - both normal and altered."

It's not "my transcendence." It is the universal nature of consciouness in its capacity to trancend its content. It is not an "altered state of consciousness." It is consciousness itself, independentent from (and absolutely unattached to) what one is concious of... including all thinking, reason, logic, planning, choosing, etc. This is simply beyond your capbility to understand, because you have never experienced consciousness as independent from its content. This makes you spiritually disabled and incapable of enlightenment, until you get over your misconceptions about transcendence in general and meditation in particular.

"If God can be forgotten simply by getting up from a sitting position, then it is a sign that He isn't enmeshed in your life thoroughly enough."
As already stated, God is both transcendent (consciousness) and manifest as/in the world and all activity... in the enlightened life. You have not ears to hear it tho. Too bad.

Skipping down... covered the objections in between already:

'Clothing your intentions in terms of "doing good" only serves to paper over the reality that your every action creates harm of one or sort or another. For example, your actions are doing harm to my cause of promoting wisdom. From my perspective, I don't really care whether you think are actions are "good" or not - they are still creating harm regardless. Islamic fundamentalists also believe that their actions are "good"."

You have a knack for 'diss-ing' everything "good" to support your radiucally negative criticism of all ways of living the enlightenment besides your ascetic renunciate model. You even consider my Truth about enlightenment "harmful" because it is different than your narrow minded version. There was a lot 'wisdom" in the "selflessness" link I gave you, for instance, but you ignore it. Here is another on Meditation from my site, which you will also undoubtably ignore:
http://www.consciousunity.org/med.htm


"As I understand it, the image of the fat Buddha is a metaphor, signifying his spiritual riches."
Right... he certainly could not have actually been a fat man, cuz it wouldn't fit your precious ascetic model. Christions will not accept that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' lover/partner either... just wouldn't be right according to church dogma on the 'evils of the flesh'... much like your own, it appears.

mikiel
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by David Quinn »

mikiel wrote: DQ: Isn't your sitting down in mediation simply a case of retrogressing back into cow-hood? Shouldn't it be called retrogression, rather than transcendence?

Are you seriously disregarding sitting meditation as a "Path to Enlightenment" and an ongoing practice after enlightenment?" You are Way more narrow minded and negatively judgemental, not to mention uninformed... oops, I just did... than I ever imagined.

If your "I" is gone, then your "I" is gone. God should now be fully present in all his glory. Why sit and try to disappear down a dark hole everyday? Don't you like God?

Personally, I can't consider any sort of mental or spiritual attainment as being worth much if it can't be fully experienced in every aspect of one's existence.

You really don't listen/comprehend well. I have said many times that enlightenment is transcendence of the illusion of "personal identity" into God Consciousness, everyones actual Identity, and that God and Nature ... the transcendental (consciousness) and the manifest (world/cosmos and all *content* of consciousness) are One... not two, non-dual, etc. You are totally spiritually deaf! I live God consciousness, both in transcendence (at Source, prior to manifestation and in everyday life, full time... the fruits of which I have recently mentioned just in contrast to your very silly characterization of my life and teaching as "cow-like blissing out."

Why do you maintain this dualistic division between source and manifestation? A wise man can see both the source and manifestation in everything that he looks at. For him, the two are fused into one.

No need for him to dive down a dark hole. What could he possibly find down there that he doesn't already have?

One doesn't "have to" take a break from the busy-ness of doing to sit still and enjoy just *being.* It is however a very enjoyable option.
Ideally, you should enjoy just "being" in the midst of everything that you do, whether you are active or sitting. Why this constant compartmentalizing of God?

'As I say, I don't really believe in your transcendence. I know that you experience something very interesting in your meditations, but it cannot be anything other than an altered state of consciousness. It is a case of altering consciousness away from normal consciousness. True wisdom, on the other hand, doesn't depend on any particular form of consciousness. It is fully present in all forms of a wise man's consciousness - both normal and altered."

It's not "my transcendence." It is the universal nature of consciouness in its capacity to trancend its content. It is not an "altered state of consciousness." It is consciousness itself, independentent from (and absolutely unattached to) what one is concious of... including all thinking, reason, logic, planning, choosing, etc. This is simply beyond your capbility to understand, because you have never experienced consciousness as independent from its content.
I have, but I recognize it to be an altered state. Even in the most seemingly object-less form of consciousness, there are always objects of consciousness arising, even if they are subtle in nature. We would have no memory or awareness of them, otherwise.

'Clothing your intentions in terms of "doing good" only serves to paper over the reality that your every action creates harm of one or sort or another. For example, your actions are doing harm to my cause of promoting wisdom. From my perspective, I don't really care whether you think are actions are "good" or not - they are still creating harm regardless. Islamic fundamentalists also believe that their actions are "good"."

You have a knack for 'diss-ing' everything "good" to support your radiucally negative criticism of all ways of living the enlightenment besides your ascetic renunciate model.
I could just as easily say the same of you.

-
mikiel
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:27 am

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by mikiel »

DQ: "If your "I" is gone, then your "I" is gone. God should now be fully present in all his glory. Why sit and try to disappear down a dark hole everyday? Don't you like God? "

Your misconceptions are obvious from enlightened perspective. The personal identiy is an illusion. Aways has been and always will be. I've tried to explain it in metaphore as a bubble which pops upon awakening... the bubble of "me in here; not-me out there." You still don't get it. God is *omnipresent.* There is only God, one 'Self', not many individual selves, but One in/as expresing through all forms/individuals. The *real*-ize this is enlightenment.
I don't know what poisened you against sitting still meditation, but it is not "disappearing down a dark hole. It is Being at the Universal Source prior to the doing of manifstation... Being the Sun in all its glory without focus on what it is shining on, but these are aspects of One Kosmos.
Duality is unconsciously imbedded in your language, as in, "Do you like God?" Awakening is realization That I Am God (manifesting as this individual and as everyone. We have only to realize It.


DQ: 'Why do you maintain this dualistic division between source and manifestation? A wise man can see both the source and manifestation in everything that he looks at. For him, the two are fused into one."
Again... still... you are ignoring what I've said many times. Two aspects of One Reality. Creator and Creation are One. Realizing this is "conscious unity" the whole message of my website, which you have sucessfully ignored and dismissed.
The transcendent aspect is consciousness itself. The manifest aspect is what consciousness is aware of... internally as thoughts, emotions, sensations, etc., and externally as world/cosmos.


DQ: 'Ideally, you should enjoy just "being" in the midst of everything that you do, whether you are active or sitting. Why this constant compartmentalizing of God?"
How many times must I say it before you get it? I do enjoy Being the Presence of God in all activities and in the perfect rest of total transcendence, Being consciousness itself, not *just* its content. Again, two aspects of One Reality. You must be very "dense" to keep ignoring this as I say it in many ways to help you understand.
DQ: "I have, but I recognize it (m:"consciousness as independent from its content") to be an altered state. Even in the most seemingly object-less form of consciousness, there are always objects of consciousness arising, even if they are subtle in nature. We would have no memory or awareness of them, otherwise."

This exposes beyond all doubt that you have never experineced true transcendence (by whatever name, including nirvana and samadhi.) No matter what arizes *in consciousness* transcendence is *Being Consciousness*, not *identified with* whatever arizes *in* consciousness. You totally and repeatedly miss this point!

Since there is no indication that you are even capable of "grokking" this point, which is central to what I teach and how I live the enlightened life, I think this conversation, for my part, is over.

mikiel
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by Faust »

Faust13 wrote:
David Quinn wrote:I'm not interested in conversing with someone who instantly dismisses any call to conscious-decision making, spiritual purposefulness, future-planning - indeed, to any form of behaviour that deviates away from a cow-like blissing out in the moment - as being unenlightened, egoistic, renunciative, etc.
Who and what posts are you referring to? All your "I-illusion" stated was that people aren't responsible for their achievements. Ok fine, but that's not a real good reason not to do the achivements. A biologist figuring out the origins of life doesn't care if he gets honoured or not, as long as he comes closer to his answer or actually answers it, is good reason to do it.
once again David refuses to answer and admit the general vacuousness and redundancy of knowing the truth of the "I-illusion". His entire self-worth is wrapped up in thinking that he knows something special, when in fact it is a poor disguise to veil his lack of substance. Nothing really changes after knowing the "I-illusion" does it?
Amor fati
Steven
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:14 pm

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by Steven »

God-consciousness indeed.

There is nothing that announces the ego louder, and its slavery to emotion and fear, than the word God.

Words have meaning, and no amount of sunny retreats, hard work, relationships, and spiritual dogma will ever hide the fact that your entire philosophy and way of life is built upon fear, and embellished by your quest to find a value for yourself.

You are no more enlightened than anyone else that fabricates a world view of theraputic concepts for the sole purpose of resolving or soothing all the emotional and psychological frailties of their particular mind.

Genius forums, contributed to by the enlightened God-consciousness, keeping women in their place. I have argued this religious bullshit online with more enlightened God-consciousness than I care to remember. I wonder how many educated and internet literate 40 somethings became enlightened since Osama flattened the WTC. I am willing to bet it is on par with the growth of Christian and Muslim faith groups.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by David Quinn »

I think you need to reinspect your own instrument here. The hostility in your rant above is palpable. And what is hostility but an expression of fear?

God-consciousness simply means consciousness without delusions. "God" is just a word for Nature as it really is, as opposed to what deluded people imagine it is. There is nothing remotely religious about it.

If you have a problem with such an enterprise, then God help you.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by David Quinn »

mikiel wrote:I don't know what poisened you against sitting still meditation, but it is not "disappearing down a dark hole. It is Being at the Universal Source prior to the doing of manifstation...
As I say, I'm puzzled as to why you need to sit down and search for the Source, when by rights, being I-less and thus having unobscured vision, you should be fully aware of the Source in each moment of your day.

The fact that you have to sit down and apply yourself in formal meditation suggests that your "I" isn't really gone and that you have to battle past it each day in order to see the Source.

Keep in mind that my argument with you is not your meditational attainments, but your claim that you are free of the I-illusion.

-
Steven
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:14 pm

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by Steven »

David Quinn wrote:I think you need to reinspect your own instrument here. The hostility in your rant above is palpable. And what is hostility but an expression of fear?
I do not claim enlightenment, nor do I deny what constitutes me.
David Quinn wrote:God-consciousness simply means consciousness without delusions. "God" is just a word for Nature as it really is, as opposed to what deluded people imagine it is. There is nothing remotely religious about it.

If you have a problem with such an enterprise, then God help you.

-
God is a word premised upon reaction to the unknown in nature, not nature itself, despite your protests. One cannot avoid etymological roots of words and concepts because one does not like them when challenged.

Conciousness without delusions means consciousness without delusions, just like Nature as it really is means Nature as it really is. God means God, which is a word that derives its meaning from the projection of ego, hopes, fantasy, fear and just about any other subjective wish as solutions to questions which the subject cannot answer factualy or dare not face.

God begins with and remains the comfort of safety or the commonplace we place over our ignorance. This is its root, this is its every manifestation, and this is its meaning when the history and usage of the word is studied.

Ofcourse you deny that this is its meaning to you, but then every philosophy built around the concept of God is destroyed by the study of its factual and historical root.

The term God is no longer useful in philosophy, precisely because of what it means. If you mean something else, use more accurate words, like these;
consciousness without delusions. Nature as it really is, as opposed to what deluded people imagine it is.
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by Jason »

"God" is a very powerful and attractive word to a lot of people, and David seems happy to trade accuracy and honesty for pulling power when it comes to his missionary work. Of course, it's also good for self-aggrandizement.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by David Quinn »

I also like using it because nearly everyone has a lot of emotional baggage concerning it. This applies just as much as to an atheist like Steven (with his allergic Pavlov-like reaction to the word) as it does to Christians or New Age mystics.

For a person to able to use the word "God" freely, without the emotional baggage, to mean whatever he wants it means - that is no small achievement.

We can't let other people's delusions dictate what words we should use or how we should use them. If we did that, then we would have to avoid using words like Tao, reality, truth, wisdom, ego, cause, logic, etc. There would be no end to it.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by David Quinn »

Steven wrote: God is a word premised upon reaction to the unknown in nature, not nature itself, despite your protests. One cannot avoid etymological roots of words and concepts because one does not like them when challenged.
Of course we can. Words are our playthings and we can do with them whatever we like.

Conciousness without delusions means consciousness without delusions, just like Nature as it really is means Nature as it really is. God means God, which is a word that derives its meaning from the projection of ego, hopes, fantasy, fear and just about any other subjective wish as solutions to questions which the subject cannot answer factualy or dare not face.
No, that's your meaning of it.

God begins with and remains the comfort of safety or the commonplace we place over our ignorance. This is its root, this is its every manifestation, and this is its meaning when the history and usage of the word is studied.
Nonsense. Wise men have historically used the word "God" to mean something very different, as a synonym for ultimate reality or Tao.

-
Steven
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:14 pm

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by Steven »

David Quinn wrote:I also like using it because nearly everyone has a lot of emotional baggage concerning it. This applies just as much as to an atheist like Steven (with his allergic Pavlov-like reaction to the word) as it does to Christians or New Age mystics.

For a person to able to use the word "God" freely, without the emotional baggage, to mean whatever he wants it means - that is no small achievement.

We can't let other people's delusions dictate what words we should use or how we should use them. If we did that, then we would have to avoid using words like Tao, reality, truth, wisdom, ego, cause, logic, etc. There would be no end to it.

-
Xrtyghdjsle

Refutes the point of discussion, unless that point is to derive some satisfaction through posting bullshit to antagonise reactions.
No, that's your meaning of it.
No thats the meaning of it as used by all the various cultures and peoples throughout history that have had their religion proven wrong.
Nonsense. Wise men have historically used the word "God" to mean something very different, as a synonym for ultimate reality or Tao.
Wise men say Tao when they mean Tao, fools play with words.
We can't let other people's delusions dictate what words we should use or how we should use them.
That is the precise requirement for communication.

You dont seem to understand much at all, and you do seem to be carrying a very big chip on your shoulder.

Have you got stuck somewhere philosophically speaking? Underneath that veneer of enlightment.
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by Jason »

David Quinn wrote:I also like using it because nearly everyone has a lot of emotional baggage concerning it. This applies just as much as to an atheist like Steven (with his allergic Pavlov-like reaction to the word) as it does to Christians or New Age mystics. For a person to able to use the word "God" freely, without the emotional baggage, to mean whatever he wants it means - that is no small achievement.

We can't let other people's delusions dictate what words we should use or how we should use them. If we did that, then we would have to avoid using words like Tao, reality, truth, wisdom, ego, cause, logic, etc. There would be no end to it.
Understanding that words are merely abstract pointers is no great revelation. The issue here is one of clear and accurate communication. I see little inherent value in redefining common words, it may be necessary at times but it should be done carefully. "God" is currently and historically very strongly linked to religion, ignorance, faith, superstition and irrationality. Redefining it to mean something that is almost in complete opposition to its normal usage doesn't make any sense as regards clear and accurate communication, and striving for clear and accurate communication should be a touchstone of quality philosophical discussion.

Also, in my experience those who have a negative reaction to the meaning and concepts usually attributed to the word "God" are more likely to be decent philosophers, whereas someone agreeing that words are just symbolic is a trivial thing - you're shooting yourself in the foot as far as I'm concerned. But whatever, I'm critiquing your methods again which just bores the shit out of me, I've done it so many times before.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by Dan Rowden »

Plus it's a somewhat baseless criticism, dare I say an ignorant one. Was Spinoza being a bad communicator when he used the word "God" throughout his writings (not to mention numerous other western philosophers)? Throughout almost all of the history of western religion, "God", among other things, most of them false, has been said to be that which is eternal and outside time. Now, whatever else one wants to ignorantly say about God, that makes God a very particular thing, as only the Totality, Universe etc can be the eternal, the beyond time. Speaking Of God in this sense merely rescues the term from the other attributed illogical bullshit. What's wrong with that, exactly? I think David might argue he's trying to avoid a baby and bathwater type calamity.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by David Quinn »

Jason wrote:"God" is currently and historically very strongly linked to religion, ignorance, faith, superstition and irrationality.
As I say, nearly every philosophic word in the dictionary is currently and historically very strongly linked to religion, ignorance, faith, superstition and irrationality. Do you expect me to create a whole new language?

Anyone who has any inkling of the nature of reality would understand the reasons why I would use the word God. They wouldn't have a problem with it at all. Like Tao, it is a very good word, for many different reasons.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by David Quinn »

Steven wrote:
David Quinn wrote:I also like using it because nearly everyone has a lot of emotional baggage concerning it. This applies just as much as to an atheist like Steven (with his allergic Pavlov-like reaction to the word) as it does to Christians or New Age mystics.

For a person to able to use the word "God" freely, without the emotional baggage, to mean whatever he wants it means - that is no small achievement.

We can't let other people's delusions dictate what words we should use or how we should use them. If we did that, then we would have to avoid using words like Tao, reality, truth, wisdom, ego, cause, logic, etc. There would be no end to it.
Xrtyghdjsle

Refutes the point of discussion, unless that point is to derive some satisfaction through posting bullshit to antagonise reactions.

As long as you give a clear meaning to the word "Xrtyghdjsle", I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Steven wrote:
No, that's your meaning of it.
No thats the meaning of it as used by all the various cultures and peoples throughout history that have had their religion proven wrong.

That's certainly one meaning of it.

Steven wrote:
We can't let other people's delusions dictate what words we should use or how we should use them.
That is the precise requirement for communication.

Again, the point is that when a group of deluded people appropriate a word for their own purposes, it isn't sufficient reason for me to stop using it.

Imagine if Creation Scientists were to take over the world and completely change the way science is done, causing it to degenerate into the shonky brand of pseudo-science so loved by them. The more intelligent members of society would then have a choice. Do they try to rescue the word "science" from these imbeciles and restore it to its original meaning? Or should they come up with a new word to describe the real practice of science. The answer would probably depend on what they saw as the better strategy.

The same principle applies with the word "God" - and indeed to other words like "genius", "truth", "reality", etc. I happen to think it is more effective (for my own cause of promoting wisdom) to rescue these words, than it is to create new ones.

-
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by Jason »

David Quinn wrote:Again, the point is that when a group of deluded people appropriate a word for their own purposes, it isn't sufficient reason for me to stop using it.
It seems much more likely that they invented and propagated the word "God" and you appropriated it.
David Quinn wrote:As I say, nearly every philosophic word in the dictionary is currently and historically very strongly linked to religion, ignorance, faith, superstition and irrationality. Do you expect me to create a whole new language?
I expect you to choose these words carefully with a close eye on the prevailing contemporary lexicon and the target audience, and if necessary create new words. The word God has been almost entirely associated with ignorance for millenia. I think it's currently a lost cause to expect it to accurately convey the meaning you often ascribe to it. To make matters worse you even sometimes speak of God using terms of personification and gender, "He" and "His". I find that just outright idiotic and misleading in the extreme.

It is simply not true that nearly every other philosophic word is linked to ignorance to the same degree as "God", you're just being oppositional and defensive. Many common notions of philosophic words may not bear a perfect resemblance to your conception of them but they come a darn sight closer than "God" and without all the terribly negative implications that that word conjures. "Reality", "all", "totality", "existence" these are all far more suitable.
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Re: Enlightenment as paradigm shift

Post by Jason »

Dan Rowden wrote:Plus it's a somewhat baseless criticism, dare I say an ignorant one. Was Spinoza being a bad communicator when he used the word "God" throughout his writings (not to mention numerous other western philosophers)? Throughout almost all of the history of western religion, "God", among other things, most of them false, has been said to be that which is eternal and outside time. Now, whatever else one wants to ignorantly say about God, that makes God a very particular thing, as only the Totality, Universe etc can be the eternal, the beyond time. Speaking Of God in this sense merely rescues the term from the other attributed illogical bullshit. What's wrong with that, exactly? I think David might argue he's trying to avoid a baby and bathwater type calamity.
I don't know if Spinoza's or those other Western philosophers' use of the word was justified. I didn't live in that time or place, I'm not immersed in those periods' mindsets and vocabularies(and I don't know enough about Spinoza.) From my perspective any reference to a real God, current or historical, doesn't give a good first impression. When it is good - it's an exception. This is 2008, science has blossomed, atheistic worldviews and culture are commonplace, the word "God" is shackled to religion and ignorance and superstition, and all of this should be taken into account if communication is to be clear. It's too late to rescue God, and I'm not sure he was ever worth saving.
Last edited by Jason on Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Locked