The result of my Journey Here
-
overlord223
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:56 am
The result of my Journey Here
Please don't misinterpret me and this is all based on my experience
forget about the philosophical God you think right now. What i'm saying is if we abandon our belief in our religious God, does this statement - " That without Him, we are nothing." is true? , True by experience for me - yes. That's why there are Philosophical concepts about Nihilism isn't it?
After reading the book of DQ about the nature of reality only makes me crappy and unproductive person. Yeah i've tried so hard to control myself but oh, there are statement floating in my heads that "hey, every actions you take is caused" or "we have no will at all because all our thoughts comes from nowhere" and also that GOD-killing statements that is really hard to be doubted. By the time when i feel so down and that statements appear, it acts like you're on a quicksand that the more I struggle and tried to go surface: the result is opposite. The only way to survive is to shout for help, And who can help me through this? Name it. Yes no one but Him.
The book of DQ was really an intelligent one, but surely there are statements and concepts or Universal Truths that really misguided me through my life, im sorry that i can't elaborate it in here, But it's really obvious that im here right now writing the not so good effects of it, getting the reward of failure. Forgive me if it's my fault because of some language barriers so the result was not really enlightened me, else it makes me more worst of a person. I nearly abandoned all of my aspirations in life and was Eye-Candied by "spiritual thingy" that DQ said many times. I can't fight back for those who hurt me, I can't compensate from what I've lost, I can't love myself at all - for all life here on earth is meaningless. That's my thought right now reaping the seeds that this Book planted on me.
All I think is to search for Truth, abandon any productive task that I should do. In The end all i Found is Nothing, really really nothing - its empty.
As of now I realize that I WAS FOOLED. btw, it's April and really suits about my situation here.
I dunno how to rebuild myself again, as the damage is really severe.
No one remembers the good guys
-
Anders Schlander
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:11 am
- Location: Denmark
Re: The result of my Journey Here
The philosophical god is not a thing of some kind, but the whole of Reality. The Christian religious god as most people see him, is a sort of fantasy image, a thing/finitized appearance of Reality, but christians are mostly blind to see the difference. By abandoning the belief in gods that don't make any sense, like a christian infinite/loving god, for example, we do not become nothing, we simply lose the perspective that blinds us.
Religions have used God in the infinite context, so instead of calling them religious/philosophical gods, maybe finite/infinite gods?
If there was no infinite there would also be no finite things, and thus, truly nothing, but then, there are things, and Reality is. It's not a problem, by even posing the problem that there is nothing, we affirm that there is something.
Anyway, what exactly are you trying to rebuild? and how can it be that you say you found nothing? surely you found something? emptiness? Consciousness automatically gives us valueing as we carve up the things we see mentally, emptiness does not mean without values or purpose, it does not mean meaninglessness.
Religions have used God in the infinite context, so instead of calling them religious/philosophical gods, maybe finite/infinite gods?
If there was no infinite there would also be no finite things, and thus, truly nothing, but then, there are things, and Reality is. It's not a problem, by even posing the problem that there is nothing, we affirm that there is something.
Anyway, what exactly are you trying to rebuild? and how can it be that you say you found nothing? surely you found something? emptiness? Consciousness automatically gives us valueing as we carve up the things we see mentally, emptiness does not mean without values or purpose, it does not mean meaninglessness.
-
otiosedodge
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:38 pm
- Location: Italy
Re: The result of my Journey Here
Hi Overlord!
First of all, NOT TO WORRY.
:)
It's quite common for people to fall into a (mistaken) nihilist interpretation of these ideas. I suggest that you try an experiment that I think will help you out of the hole you're in. You seem to have gotten to a point where you think there's nothing out there, that it's all an illusion. But remember that that only applies to concepts, to THINGS. Here's the experiment: think of a moment when you weren't thinking about anything, where you were just experiencing (for lack of a better word). Where there wasn't a single thing, a single concept in your head. I often think of a moment when I was jogging one day, and there was just the experience of jogging, and nothing else. Jogging, jogging, jogging. So, when you have that moment in mind, remember the feeling of that moment. It's peaceful, right? It's still. And it's not really definable by words. The closest word is probably "peace". That's real. In fact, that's the only really real thing. No concepts.
Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any questions or anything. Hang in there!
First of all, NOT TO WORRY.
:)
It's quite common for people to fall into a (mistaken) nihilist interpretation of these ideas. I suggest that you try an experiment that I think will help you out of the hole you're in. You seem to have gotten to a point where you think there's nothing out there, that it's all an illusion. But remember that that only applies to concepts, to THINGS. Here's the experiment: think of a moment when you weren't thinking about anything, where you were just experiencing (for lack of a better word). Where there wasn't a single thing, a single concept in your head. I often think of a moment when I was jogging one day, and there was just the experience of jogging, and nothing else. Jogging, jogging, jogging. So, when you have that moment in mind, remember the feeling of that moment. It's peaceful, right? It's still. And it's not really definable by words. The closest word is probably "peace". That's real. In fact, that's the only really real thing. No concepts.
Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any questions or anything. Hang in there!
-
Alex T. Jacob
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am
Re: The result of my Journey Here
April---as in 'April is the cruellest month'?
overlord223 wrote: "By the time when i feel so down and that statements appear, it acts like you're on a quicksand that the more I struggle and tried to go surface: the result is opposite. The only way to survive is to shout for help, And who can help me through this? Name it. Yes no one but Him. / I dunno how to rebuild myself again, as the damage is really severe."
Moving through the 'realm of ideas' is like moving through a mine-field: be careful where you step. Because a false step can result in dismemberment, getting mangled. Idea structures can be and sometimes are 'spider webs' constructed by a being who is quite interested in the delicious juices of your body. That is something you have always to be on the lookout for. You could move in atheistic circles of ideas or in strict theistic circles of ideas, the same would be true.
Old waysof explaining 'God' lose their validity because of the concept-structure that supports them has been superceded by huge waves of new information, contrary narratives, and will-structure by different groups, with various agendas. And also by a 'good-faith' desire to really bring these ideas into a modern light.
I personally don't find the thinkers here really so great at all. In fact, they are rather bland and non-incisive. I would even go so far as to say that here it is pretty common to work with a sort of group-think that is not at all original.
It is actually, I think, easier in many ways to go along with a species of herd-mentality and think only in 'atheistic' terms, as for example Schlanders and Dodge seem inclined to do. (Or you could perform the really interesting little trick of DQ: the triple backwards atheistic wind-up-using-the-term-God-and-the-basic-meaning-all-over-again-sophistic-flip that is his specialty!) ;-)
The 'reasoning' they present, I submit, is as spurious as any kind of reasoning that is out there. It is bland and mono-dimensional. It suits that type of mind. It functions when it is supported by others who uphold it, who have reasons to do so. But at the same time it does have a certain internal logic, insofar as outmoded means of describing God are now falling by the wayside and it can assert itself with little resistance.
The language-system that supported an old theism falls asunder. But I don't personally feel that 'the fact of God' has been defeated. There is a concerted effort to renew the language-concepts that support the idea of 'a God who is there' (as Francis Schaeffer once wrote).
overlord223 wrote: "By the time when i feel so down and that statements appear, it acts like you're on a quicksand that the more I struggle and tried to go surface: the result is opposite. The only way to survive is to shout for help, And who can help me through this? Name it. Yes no one but Him. / I dunno how to rebuild myself again, as the damage is really severe."
Moving through the 'realm of ideas' is like moving through a mine-field: be careful where you step. Because a false step can result in dismemberment, getting mangled. Idea structures can be and sometimes are 'spider webs' constructed by a being who is quite interested in the delicious juices of your body. That is something you have always to be on the lookout for. You could move in atheistic circles of ideas or in strict theistic circles of ideas, the same would be true.
Old waysof explaining 'God' lose their validity because of the concept-structure that supports them has been superceded by huge waves of new information, contrary narratives, and will-structure by different groups, with various agendas. And also by a 'good-faith' desire to really bring these ideas into a modern light.
I personally don't find the thinkers here really so great at all. In fact, they are rather bland and non-incisive. I would even go so far as to say that here it is pretty common to work with a sort of group-think that is not at all original.
It is actually, I think, easier in many ways to go along with a species of herd-mentality and think only in 'atheistic' terms, as for example Schlanders and Dodge seem inclined to do. (Or you could perform the really interesting little trick of DQ: the triple backwards atheistic wind-up-using-the-term-God-and-the-basic-meaning-all-over-again-sophistic-flip that is his specialty!) ;-)
The 'reasoning' they present, I submit, is as spurious as any kind of reasoning that is out there. It is bland and mono-dimensional. It suits that type of mind. It functions when it is supported by others who uphold it, who have reasons to do so. But at the same time it does have a certain internal logic, insofar as outmoded means of describing God are now falling by the wayside and it can assert itself with little resistance.
The language-system that supported an old theism falls asunder. But I don't personally feel that 'the fact of God' has been defeated. There is a concerted effort to renew the language-concepts that support the idea of 'a God who is there' (as Francis Schaeffer once wrote).
I can't go on. I'll go on.
-
Carmel
Re: The result of my Journey Here
Anders Schlander: The philosophical god is not a thing of some kind, but the whole of Reality.
Carmel:
yes, that reminded me a story I heard recently on the radio...
Upon his deathbed, Einstein's nurse asked him: "Did God create the garden?" He replied: "No, God IS the Garden."
While, I don't see any way around cause and effect. I find this idea more liberating than the Christian version of God.
Anders Schlander:
The Christian religious god as most people see him, is a sort of fantasy image, a thing/finitized appearance of Reality, but christians are mostly blind to see the difference. By abandoning the belief in gods that don't make any sense, like a christian infinite/loving god, for example, we do not become nothing, we simply lose the perspective that blinds us.
Carmel:
Yes, I was raised atheistically, but from what I understand, giving up a more personalized, paternalistic version of God can be psychologically traumatic for some people. Perhaps, this is what you're experiencing, overlord?
...but, regardless of our religious/spiritual beliefs(or lack thereof), we all experience/question the same existential issues at some point in our lives. overlord, keep in mind, it's often "darkest before the dawn." This too shall pass...
Anders Schlander:
If there was no infinite there would also be no finite things, and thus, truly nothing, but then, there are things, and Reality is. It's not a problem, by even posing the problem that there is nothing, we affirm that there is something.
Carmel:
Yes! :) If there's nothing, there's something...
Anders Schlander:
Anyway, what exactly are you trying to rebuild? and how can it be that you say you found nothing? surely you found something? emptiness? Consciousness automatically gives us valueing as we carve up the things we see mentally, emptiness does not mean without values or purpose, it does not mean meaninglessness.[/quote]
Carmel:
...if there's emptiness, there's fullness. If there's illusion, there's reality.
overlord, Don't get stuck in emptiness, nothingness. That's only part of "reality". As for your reference to nihilism. In and of itself, nihilistic thought is neither "good", nor "bad". Sometimes, we need to destroy old thought patterns in order to make room for newer, higher ones.
You are the Garden, You are God. Create your own World.
Carmel:
yes, that reminded me a story I heard recently on the radio...
Upon his deathbed, Einstein's nurse asked him: "Did God create the garden?" He replied: "No, God IS the Garden."
While, I don't see any way around cause and effect. I find this idea more liberating than the Christian version of God.
Anders Schlander:
The Christian religious god as most people see him, is a sort of fantasy image, a thing/finitized appearance of Reality, but christians are mostly blind to see the difference. By abandoning the belief in gods that don't make any sense, like a christian infinite/loving god, for example, we do not become nothing, we simply lose the perspective that blinds us.
Carmel:
Yes, I was raised atheistically, but from what I understand, giving up a more personalized, paternalistic version of God can be psychologically traumatic for some people. Perhaps, this is what you're experiencing, overlord?
...but, regardless of our religious/spiritual beliefs(or lack thereof), we all experience/question the same existential issues at some point in our lives. overlord, keep in mind, it's often "darkest before the dawn." This too shall pass...
Anders Schlander:
If there was no infinite there would also be no finite things, and thus, truly nothing, but then, there are things, and Reality is. It's not a problem, by even posing the problem that there is nothing, we affirm that there is something.
Carmel:
Yes! :) If there's nothing, there's something...
Anders Schlander:
Anyway, what exactly are you trying to rebuild? and how can it be that you say you found nothing? surely you found something? emptiness? Consciousness automatically gives us valueing as we carve up the things we see mentally, emptiness does not mean without values or purpose, it does not mean meaninglessness.[/quote]
Carmel:
...if there's emptiness, there's fullness. If there's illusion, there's reality.
overlord, Don't get stuck in emptiness, nothingness. That's only part of "reality". As for your reference to nihilism. In and of itself, nihilistic thought is neither "good", nor "bad". Sometimes, we need to destroy old thought patterns in order to make room for newer, higher ones.
You are the Garden, You are God. Create your own World.
-
Alex T. Jacob
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am
Re: The result of my Journey Here
And you thought, Overlord, yours would be a difficult healing. See how easy it is? There, there. All is well. ;-)
Some ideas here might be germane to this conversation. (The inevitable, ever-repeating one between two different structures of mind).
Here too.
Please don't be confused: I don't advocate necessarily a 'Christian manouvre' in the classic sense, but do 'take into consideration' the general religious manouvre as something worth paying attention to. I.e. not dismissing quite as readily as many here seem to.
This article in the NY Times, I thought, was interesting. It doesn't answer or speak to much in this present conversation but still I though I'd post a link to it.
Some ideas here might be germane to this conversation. (The inevitable, ever-repeating one between two different structures of mind).
Here too.
Please don't be confused: I don't advocate necessarily a 'Christian manouvre' in the classic sense, but do 'take into consideration' the general religious manouvre as something worth paying attention to. I.e. not dismissing quite as readily as many here seem to.
This article in the NY Times, I thought, was interesting. It doesn't answer or speak to much in this present conversation but still I though I'd post a link to it.
I can't go on. I'll go on.
-
Carmel
Re: The result of my Journey Here
Alex:
Please don't be confused: I don't advocate necessarily a 'Christian manouvre' in the classic sense, but do 'take into consideration' the general religious manouvre as something worth paying attention to. I.e. not dismissing quite as readily as many here seem to.
Carmel:
No need to be so sensitive, dear Alex;) I, for one, wasn't dismissing your ideology, nor Christianity, on the whole. I'll accept "truth" wherever I find it, regardless of the source.
A sociology teacher of mine once said: "It doesn't matter who you worship, it all goes to the same place." I don't know if that's definitively true, but I understand what he meant by that.
Without a doubt, I often find much insight and inspiration in many of your posts.
Now, maybe find us a link about "Perennial philosophy" and clear this whole mess up!
Please don't be confused: I don't advocate necessarily a 'Christian manouvre' in the classic sense, but do 'take into consideration' the general religious manouvre as something worth paying attention to. I.e. not dismissing quite as readily as many here seem to.
Carmel:
No need to be so sensitive, dear Alex;) I, for one, wasn't dismissing your ideology, nor Christianity, on the whole. I'll accept "truth" wherever I find it, regardless of the source.
A sociology teacher of mine once said: "It doesn't matter who you worship, it all goes to the same place." I don't know if that's definitively true, but I understand what he meant by that.
Without a doubt, I often find much insight and inspiration in many of your posts.
Now, maybe find us a link about "Perennial philosophy" and clear this whole mess up!
-
Alex T. Jacob
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am
Re: The result of my Journey Here
Me, sensitive?
;-)
God died, and we killed him.
(This could all be an April Fool's joke by overlord223.)
;-)
God died, and we killed him.
(This could all be an April Fool's joke by overlord223.)
I can't go on. I'll go on.
-
Anders Schlander
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:11 am
- Location: Denmark
Re: The result of my Journey Here
it could be, but i simply took the post at face value, oh, and it's posted the 4th of april.
Re: The result of my Journey Here
So much for "I'll stop".
-
otiosedodge
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:38 pm
- Location: Italy
Re: The result of my Journey Here
Alex: Old waysof explaining 'God' lose their validity because of the concept-structure that supports them has been superceded by huge waves of new information, contrary narratives, and will-structure by different groups, with various agendas. And also by a 'good-faith' desire to really bring these ideas into a modern light.
Me: What's your definition of "God"? And do you have a new way of explaining "God's" existence?
Alex: I personally don't find the thinkers here really so great at all. In fact, they are rather bland and non-incisive. I would even go so far as to say that here it is pretty common to work with a sort of group-think that is not at all original.
It is actually, I think, easier in many ways to go along with a species of herd-mentality and think only in 'atheistic' terms, as for example Schlanders and Dodge seem inclined to do. (Or you could perform the really interesting little trick of DQ: the triple backwards atheistic wind-up-using-the-term-God-and-the-basic-meaning-all-over-again-sophistic-flip that is his specialty!) ;-)
Me: I'll admit that I'm a little bored since I realized ultimate reality for the first time. But then again, there's so much work to do in the world on its behalf!
The "group-think" you refer to is related to this boredom I mentioned, in that once you discover the truth about the nature of reality, then you realize that you almost certainly won't make a discovery of that magnitude again. So in short, what you call group-think is agreement over truth. FYI, I'm agnostic. If I am ever given enough evidence, I'll certainly believe in whatever there's evidence for.
Alex: The 'reasoning' they present, I submit, is as spurious as any kind of reasoning that is out there. It is bland and mono-dimensional. It suits that type of mind. It functions when it is supported by others who uphold it, who have reasons to do so. But at the same time it does have a certain internal logic, insofar as outmoded means of describing God are now falling by the wayside and it can assert itself with little resistance.
Me: Why is our reasoning spurious?
From the Tao Te Ching: "The Tao is bland."
Alex: The language-system that supported an old theism falls asunder. But I don't personally feel that 'the fact of God' has been defeated. There is a concerted effort to renew the language-concepts that support the idea of 'a God who is there' (as Francis Schaeffer once wrote).
Me: I don't think the non-existence of God has been proven, so I can't dismiss the idea of God. But I have yet to see any real evidence for its existence.
Me: What's your definition of "God"? And do you have a new way of explaining "God's" existence?
Alex: I personally don't find the thinkers here really so great at all. In fact, they are rather bland and non-incisive. I would even go so far as to say that here it is pretty common to work with a sort of group-think that is not at all original.
It is actually, I think, easier in many ways to go along with a species of herd-mentality and think only in 'atheistic' terms, as for example Schlanders and Dodge seem inclined to do. (Or you could perform the really interesting little trick of DQ: the triple backwards atheistic wind-up-using-the-term-God-and-the-basic-meaning-all-over-again-sophistic-flip that is his specialty!) ;-)
Me: I'll admit that I'm a little bored since I realized ultimate reality for the first time. But then again, there's so much work to do in the world on its behalf!
The "group-think" you refer to is related to this boredom I mentioned, in that once you discover the truth about the nature of reality, then you realize that you almost certainly won't make a discovery of that magnitude again. So in short, what you call group-think is agreement over truth. FYI, I'm agnostic. If I am ever given enough evidence, I'll certainly believe in whatever there's evidence for.
Alex: The 'reasoning' they present, I submit, is as spurious as any kind of reasoning that is out there. It is bland and mono-dimensional. It suits that type of mind. It functions when it is supported by others who uphold it, who have reasons to do so. But at the same time it does have a certain internal logic, insofar as outmoded means of describing God are now falling by the wayside and it can assert itself with little resistance.
Me: Why is our reasoning spurious?
From the Tao Te Ching: "The Tao is bland."
Alex: The language-system that supported an old theism falls asunder. But I don't personally feel that 'the fact of God' has been defeated. There is a concerted effort to renew the language-concepts that support the idea of 'a God who is there' (as Francis Schaeffer once wrote).
Me: I don't think the non-existence of God has been proven, so I can't dismiss the idea of God. But I have yet to see any real evidence for its existence.
-
longsincedead
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:19 pm
Re: The result of my Journey Here
Seeking truth - is seeking facts and placing them into proper context. This equals knowledge.All I think is to search for Truth, abandon any productive task that I should do.
There is nothing more productive. It is not that other activities are not productive. It is just that Thought proceeds action. Action without good clear intention is less productive.
As to your (if I get this correctly) former religious beliefs. What did they do for you? By this I mean (metaphor): If your car breaks down; will beliefs fix it, or will action guided by knowledge (if you have acquired that specific knowledge).
The word love is a bad concept. Value is better. We all have values (things we value). Having a mission in life is the most valuable thing a person can have. Intellectual development will be the limiting factor. Only you can find meaning. If you turn over you own mind, to be filled by others (have a purpose given to you), you will never truly exist as an individual.I can't love myself at all - for all life here on earth is meaningless.
-
Alex T. Jacob
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am
Re: The result of my Journey Here
O Dodge wrote: "What's your definition of "God"? And do you have a new way of explaining "God's" existence?"
Group-think more has to do with a certain kind of mind-set that joins up with others who have the same structure and then they get down to the business of 'working out their agreements'. For the most part, this 'structure of thought' is almost exclusively a mental construct, a mathematical type of reasoning which, by nature, is separate from so many different things: the body itself, intuition, imagination, pure and sophisticated feeling, a 'holistic' experience of and appreciation for a wide range of ideas and products that have arisen from knowledge and searching, historically, cross-culturally.
I suppose the list could go on. This mind-set, then, with its limited and limiting initial structure, proceeds to quickly run through the surface presentation of, say, Christianity or religious belief generally, and as it nervously proceeds it sticks labels on everything: not real---without value---unwise, and then tosses out all that it (mathematical mind) cannot process and has no use for. The mountain of discards grows, and that mountain pretty much corresponds with human life.
The Saga of Ultimate Reality, rehearsed here (you have to acknowledge the theatrical aspect though the heavy participants never do), is about a being who has disconnected at the most essential level from life, and the means to that is a series of 'manouvres' as I call them which are 'rehearsed publically'.
Because so many of the participants in this rehearsal of reductionsim seem to have quite specific mental issues, yet who never see these issues as having any bearing on the way they have chosen to organize their perception, the structure of belief begins to look more and more like a shared neurosis and not really a path that has to do with discovering much of anything at all. But this is never spoken of. It can't, for obvious reasons.
The interesting question becomes (if one were to look at it in terms of causation) is how has it come about that this 'certain type of mind' has arisen? What are the factors that have produced it? Is it a viable way of thinking (being, acting, relating, living) or is it a way to avoid viability? To avoid the issue? To 'escape'? Well, you will obviously gather what I think about it. I tend to see it as a 'strategy', a kind of 'manouvre', and to see it not as a reaching out for life (impulse toward life) but a sort of shutting down. It's like the computer system which runs the whole organism realizes it doesn't have a complete enough software program to run the whole organism and so shuts it down, except of course a very active core-program in the brain module. It is utterly capable as a Talking Head but quite incapable of having anything at all to say or to recommend for those who will live life. In some sense it is a suicide trip. But in another sense it is in suspended animation as it awaits the impulse to resurrect. (Peculiar, isn't it, to push the metaphors?)
So, how has this come about? That is, of course, the Ten Thousand Dollar Question. But of course one of the main ones is: God has died, and we killed him. What was an ironic double-entendre for Nietzsche is an endless unfolding of experiences and circumstances for us. Really to define 'God' is to define oneself in relation to the universe in which we have our life. It is, I suppose, a kind of inner knowing that is not quite the same as a rationalistic, mathematical knowing. I suppose it is arrived at by other means: through the mind's relationship with 'the body itself, intuition, imagination, pure and sophisticated feeling, a 'holistic' experience of and appreciation for a wide range of ideas and products that have arisen from knowledge and searching historically, cross-culturally'. This is in fact far more difficult than retreating from the essential mind-body problem and taking up refuge in the brain-module and INSISTING that the solution to the problem is binary.
If all the relevant structures of the man are essentially in shut-down mode, but all those structures and capabilities are necessary for a holistic relationship to the problem, how ever and in what terms would the 'idea of God' be communicated? It simply does not appear on the perception-screen. Or, if it appears it appears like an equation, in mathematical symbols. It is taken up like a math problem.
The way I see it, we are all in this huge and dramatic Problem. We have been separated from some sort of core connectedness, which is a 'birthright' isn't it? Or is it strictly our fate, which is only the result of a random explosion in the distant past, to become aware of our chaotic origin and to accept it as essentially absurd?
Group-think more has to do with a certain kind of mind-set that joins up with others who have the same structure and then they get down to the business of 'working out their agreements'. For the most part, this 'structure of thought' is almost exclusively a mental construct, a mathematical type of reasoning which, by nature, is separate from so many different things: the body itself, intuition, imagination, pure and sophisticated feeling, a 'holistic' experience of and appreciation for a wide range of ideas and products that have arisen from knowledge and searching, historically, cross-culturally.
I suppose the list could go on. This mind-set, then, with its limited and limiting initial structure, proceeds to quickly run through the surface presentation of, say, Christianity or religious belief generally, and as it nervously proceeds it sticks labels on everything: not real---without value---unwise, and then tosses out all that it (mathematical mind) cannot process and has no use for. The mountain of discards grows, and that mountain pretty much corresponds with human life.
The Saga of Ultimate Reality, rehearsed here (you have to acknowledge the theatrical aspect though the heavy participants never do), is about a being who has disconnected at the most essential level from life, and the means to that is a series of 'manouvres' as I call them which are 'rehearsed publically'.
Because so many of the participants in this rehearsal of reductionsim seem to have quite specific mental issues, yet who never see these issues as having any bearing on the way they have chosen to organize their perception, the structure of belief begins to look more and more like a shared neurosis and not really a path that has to do with discovering much of anything at all. But this is never spoken of. It can't, for obvious reasons.
The interesting question becomes (if one were to look at it in terms of causation) is how has it come about that this 'certain type of mind' has arisen? What are the factors that have produced it? Is it a viable way of thinking (being, acting, relating, living) or is it a way to avoid viability? To avoid the issue? To 'escape'? Well, you will obviously gather what I think about it. I tend to see it as a 'strategy', a kind of 'manouvre', and to see it not as a reaching out for life (impulse toward life) but a sort of shutting down. It's like the computer system which runs the whole organism realizes it doesn't have a complete enough software program to run the whole organism and so shuts it down, except of course a very active core-program in the brain module. It is utterly capable as a Talking Head but quite incapable of having anything at all to say or to recommend for those who will live life. In some sense it is a suicide trip. But in another sense it is in suspended animation as it awaits the impulse to resurrect. (Peculiar, isn't it, to push the metaphors?)
So, how has this come about? That is, of course, the Ten Thousand Dollar Question. But of course one of the main ones is: God has died, and we killed him. What was an ironic double-entendre for Nietzsche is an endless unfolding of experiences and circumstances for us. Really to define 'God' is to define oneself in relation to the universe in which we have our life. It is, I suppose, a kind of inner knowing that is not quite the same as a rationalistic, mathematical knowing. I suppose it is arrived at by other means: through the mind's relationship with 'the body itself, intuition, imagination, pure and sophisticated feeling, a 'holistic' experience of and appreciation for a wide range of ideas and products that have arisen from knowledge and searching historically, cross-culturally'. This is in fact far more difficult than retreating from the essential mind-body problem and taking up refuge in the brain-module and INSISTING that the solution to the problem is binary.
If all the relevant structures of the man are essentially in shut-down mode, but all those structures and capabilities are necessary for a holistic relationship to the problem, how ever and in what terms would the 'idea of God' be communicated? It simply does not appear on the perception-screen. Or, if it appears it appears like an equation, in mathematical symbols. It is taken up like a math problem.
The way I see it, we are all in this huge and dramatic Problem. We have been separated from some sort of core connectedness, which is a 'birthright' isn't it? Or is it strictly our fate, which is only the result of a random explosion in the distant past, to become aware of our chaotic origin and to accept it as essentially absurd?
I can't go on. I'll go on.
-
overlord223
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:56 am
Re: The result of my Journey Here
im back, after all reading and reflecting with your replies, I must say that i was just depressed..deeply. Now i realize that i was fallen by a hole created by my own thought or rather err.. So , the first to blame is me, and not the truth itself. right now ill go back to my old self.
and last thing please dont reply my in a very difficult and not so friendly-comprehensive replies as it would take long time for me to understand it fully.
and what do you mean in scientism in simple definition?
and last thing please dont reply my in a very difficult and not so friendly-comprehensive replies as it would take long time for me to understand it fully.
and what do you mean in scientism in simple definition?
this is existensialism eh?longsincedead wrote: The word love is a bad concept. Value is better. We all have values (things we value). Having a mission in life is the most valuable thing a person can have. Intellectual development will be the limiting factor. Only you can find meaning. If you turn over you own mind, to be filled by others (have a purpose given to you), you will never truly exist as an individual.
No one remembers the good guys
-
longsincedead
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:19 pm
Re: The result of my Journey Here
Not to my limited knowledge of many "philosophies". I only concern myself with proper abstraction.overlord223 wrote:this is existensialism eh?longsincedead wrote: The word love is a bad concept. Value is better. We all have values (things we value). Having a mission in life is the most valuable thing a person can have. Intellectual development will be the limiting factor. Only you can find meaning. If you turn over you own mind, to be filled by others (have a purpose given to you), you will never truly exist as an individual.
I called out the word "love" because it is not only unnecessary, but people use it as a mean to avoid defining what they value and why. Typical bromide: "Love is blind". To really value something one must asses it. The degree to which you value something, in a rational way, is proportional to you understanding of it.
The second part is just matter of fact.