Spirituality and Logic

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Pam Seeback »

So serious are we about a world of constant flux, hehehe, the joke's on us. Laughter, the best medicine indeed, laughter based on wisdom of the infinite, the ultimate high!
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Bobo wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: The reason for this lies in any "A" being illusive, like any "not A". Two illusions don't make a disillusion, let alone any "reality".
Are you saying that logic cannot capture reality?
The verb capturing could imply something outside or bigger than that reality. Logic is at the base the only way to perceive -- anything! Or to discard.
Why would that be? Reality is logic at the base? Perception is logic at base? Actually, isn't logic just an idealized form of perception? Perfect perception, perception without errors and mistakes.
A description of causality as 'the cause precedes the effect' says that every effect has a cause, the description says nothing about stretching into the infinite
It's an expression of relation. Something does not exist "by itself" or "inherent" simply because it's dependent on for example the universe to exist in the way it does. But that relates again to whole other effects. It's not hard to see it stretching into the unmeasurable and senseless. Maybe the word "infinite" confuses you? Then call it nature. The causes and effects of a thing stretch out into the whole of nature and are not separate -- and as such ultimately unmeasurable. A measurement creates the thing for some end or purpose. It "exists" in that purpose driven context but not metaphysically.
You said before that the "infinite" is not an entity or quality and you also said that things are infinite, you are talking about the 'untalkable', distinguishing it from the indistinguishable, making distinctions and saying that there is none, I guess the next move of wisdom would be to deny that you've made those distinctions and say that I am making them because my mind is clouded with delusions.

Where I was leading before with a 'thing somehow being infinite too' is that it does raise metaphysical questions if you want to be logical about it. So far I think that the only thing being stretched is the argument. We're starting from cause>effect, it seems that you are saying that the cause must have a cause too and so on as in: cause of cause>cause>effect. This is the stretch.

If you want to include the causes of cause as a cause of the effect while it seems that we've something that we didn't have before the case remains the same, we have cause>effect, as the causes are just part of cause, not a cause of a cause of a cause. And if you don't include the causes of cause as the cause for an effect we still have cause>effect.

For example, if we compare an effect A with effect B, and their causes goes to infinity, are they infinitely equal or infinitely different? Or they are finitely different, then how they are infinite?
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

Russell wrote:It's not simply that the details are finer than we can perceive in any given moment, it's also that we cannot know anything with 100% certainty about the details of what has been sensed.
-
"Oneness" is really just one of many conceptual metaphors to describe the state of reality in the most fundamental sense.
-
I can't imagine him relying on quantum mechanics to provide the proof of his religion to be a good start. Sounds like a new age "spiritual science" type.
Not the type, as he seemed to know how to read sanscrit and maybe were wearing strange clothes, the thing is that I've compared the gita with regular literature like fiction, I think his reasoning was that quantum physics proves what was written in the book about the fundamentals of reality ages ago. Thus the book isn't a regular book it must be a sacred book. Maybe dogmatic is a better word than fundamentalist.

The thing with quantum physics is that some interpretations of it can support what you are saying about certainty, for example, and say that it is not only because of the senses or counsciousness that we cannot have 100% certainty it is a fact in the basis of reality. And maybe it may even support some notion of non-dualism as things are not bounded by causes the regular way. The dogma would be in equating physics or logic with spirituality, and by logic and physics here I mean the whole process of it. Just because something is written in a book doesn't mean it is true, and funnily enough because logic deals with the concept of truth, just because something can be put in a logical form doesn't mean it is true too.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Russell Parr »

Bobo wrote:The thing with quantum physics is that some interpretations of it can support what you are saying about certainty, for example, and say that it is not only because of the senses or counsciousness that we cannot have 100% certainty it is a fact in the basis of reality. And maybe it may even support some notion of non-dualism as things are not bounded by causes the regular way.
Quantum mechanics can't tell us anything with absolute certainty about reality because it always uses empirical observations as premises. As does physics, and every other branch of science. Every step in science involves momentarily setting aside the truth that what we presume to know about the premise is, in itself, a proposition that is always open to further hypothesis. All answers derived from science are practical, yet conditional. Absolute premises are needed to build knowledge of absolute truths. Logic is the only tool for the job.
The dogma would be in equating physics or logic with spirituality, and by logic and physics here I mean the whole process of it.
As far as I know, I never claimed logic alone to be equal to spirituality, but rather that the act of implementing logical absolute knowledge into one's thinking habits is a spiritual practice, in the sense that it gives one a finely tuned sense of one's place and relationship with and within reality. Also, physics and causation are barely related, if you were implying relation. Causality is a purely logical concept which deals with the continual, immeasurable changes that all things, including observation itself, go through. Physics deals with the finite, measurable changes of strictly the things of our observations.
and funnily enough because logic deals with the concept of truth, just because something can be put in a logical form doesn't mean it is true too.
How so? If a statement, idea, or whatever is purely logical and consistent, does this not mean it is correct?
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

I disagree that in doing science scientists have to ignore the hypothetical nature of their doing, one of the strongest points of science lies in it not dealing with absolutes. Contrary to what you said physics itself is a highly speculative science in which the theory should be evidenciable. I think that what you would find as being purely logical and consistent, as the things that logicians would agree it to be, is way less than what you might think it to be, one of the points of logic is dealing with forms and not with content.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Russell Parr »

Bobo wrote:I disagree that in doing science scientists have to ignore the hypothetical nature of their doing, one of the strongest points of science lies in it not dealing with absolutes. Contrary to what you said physics itself is a highly speculative science in which the theory should be evidenciable.
Yes, science's strength is in dealing with non-absolutes, or 'temporal' absolutes, if you will. It cannot even partake in pure absolutes, as that would unravel the whole scientific method into pure obscurity. For example, recording evidence becomes meaningless with an ever present notion of the actual, overall immeasurable rate that change occurs in reality. Thus, the absolute truth of the constancy of change is at least partially suspended to make room for circumstantial evidence. Such evidence acts as a still image of reality, a temporal snap shot of an event that is ultimately without beginning or end, inside and out.
I think that what you would find as being purely logical and consistent, as the things that logicians would agree it to be, is way less than what you might think it to be, one of the points of logic is dealing with forms and not with content.
Logic formalizes content. Form is dependent on content, and vice versa, so it is inaccurate to say that logic deals with one and not the other.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

You wrote purely logical I interpreted it to mean without content. Usually you can have various logical formalizations for the same phenomena where you cannot use only logic to determine the 'correct' one.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Russell Parr »

I see. I am more concerned with philosophical logic, not so much logic as define by logicians.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

Correctness implies that something can be compared or verified against something else to ascertain the correctness of it. In logic someone may verify that something follows logically from an axiom, and changing the axioms verify opposite.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Bobo wrote: Actually, isn't logic just an idealized form of perception? Perfect perception, perception without errors and mistakes.
But we're not talking about a process where "errors" and "mistakes" would have any meaning yet, so it's really not with or without any. Perhaps that's the only way for something to be perfect, as basically unformed? Even the idea of "error" will remain relative to a definition of success. But any perceived form or assertion will need contrast with what it's not. For that reason logic (the identity principle) is indeed about perception and axiomatic to how things are being perceived.
A description of causality as 'the cause precedes the effect' says that every effect has a cause, the description says nothing about stretching into the infinite
It's an expression of relation. Something does not exist "by itself" or "inherent" simply because it's dependent on for example the universe to exist in the way it does. But that relates again to whole other effects. It's not hard to see it stretching into the unmeasurable and senseless. Maybe the word "infinite" confuses you? Then call it nature. The causes and effects of a thing stretch out into the whole of nature and are not separate -- and as such ultimately unmeasurable. A measurement creates the thing for some end or purpose. It "exists" in that purpose driven context but not metaphysically.
You said before that the "infinite" is not an entity or quality and you also said that things are infinite, you are talking about the 'untalkable', distinguishing it from the indistinguishable, making distinctions and saying that there is none, I guess the next move of wisdom would be to deny that you've made those distinctions and say that I am making them because my mind is clouded with delusions.
It's actually good to supply critique when you see a contradiction! To me that's the whole point of having discussions here. The only problem is that you're merely paraphrasing me and yet imply contradictions in those phrases, making it more difficult for me to attempt to show why I think they're not contradicting.

Perhaps I was stretching language a bit too \far when saying that things are shown to be infinite? With that I meant that they can be shown not to exist inherently or completely independent from anything else. The reason I said the "infinite" was not an entity or quality would be rooted in the idea that we're speaking about the totality without any division.
The one thing I object to in your summary is that I'd distinguish "it" from the indistinguishable. There's not much to say about the "whole" indeed since it has zero and all attributes. But every breath I take, every step I take is distinguishing. Logically I can arrive at the knowledge that there is no separation, not even while I'm expressing anything.
If you want to include the causes of cause as a cause of the effect while it seems that we've something that we didn't have before the case remains the same, we have cause>effect, as the causes are just part of cause, not a cause of a cause of a cause. And if you don't include the causes of cause as the cause for an effect we still have cause>effect.
There's causality, meaning that every time we single out a "cause", we just keep having causality. No need to write recursively, it's a principle.
For example, if we compare an effect A with effect B, and their causes goes to infinity, are they infinitely equal or infinitely different? Or they are finitely different, then how they are infinite?
Their causes might "go to infinite" but you and your observations will certainly not! Comparisons are always contextual and selective, therefore limited and bound. While that might count as illusive, it doesn't mean it cannot be practical in terms of modeling of relative changes.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: But we're not talking about a process where "errors" and "mistakes" would have any meaning yet, so it's really not with or without any. Perhaps that's the only way for something to be perfect, as basically unformed? Even the idea of "error" will remain relative to a definition of success. But any perceived form or assertion will need contrast with what it's not. For that reason logic (the identity principle) is indeed about perception and axiomatic to how things are being perceived.
Error and mistakes would be the extreme cases of misperception which happens on the verge of perception, you may just look outside and see how you see things closely and at distance. Let's say I present you with twins, you may hear that people who are familiar with them know how to tell each other well, maybe it is not so for you which is not familiar with them so if you were to keep them apart you would do so by their clothes or using some other trick, or maybe your perception is such that you could tell them apart from just meeting them. Anyone would be capable of recognizing them as two different persons if they were presented together, not everyone if they were presented separately, someone might think I am just trying to fool them with the same person as a twin of himself. So errors and mistakes are extremes cases in perception and qualitatively part of it, logic would be perception as if without limits or unbound.

Now take this kind of perception and instead of applying it only to people we apply it also to emotions or ideas, and if we do so we may as well apply it to logic and perception so we could tell them independently of the ambiguities of language, interpersonal subjectivity, we could look at someone and tell if they are perceiving or logicing, or if we ourselves are doing it, if we did so we could be done with this discussion about what is perception and what is logic.

You say any perceived form will need contrast with what it is not. You're attributing necessety, keeping with the analogies for a bit, if in seeing things naturally you see shadows accompanying every thing, would it be correct to say that a thing needs its shadow, if so turn the lights out, so where exactly is the need? There doesn't seem to be any need in perception itself too, the contrast is more like a byproduct of it.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Russell Parr »

I think it would be useful to talk a little more about metaphysics at this point. As Google defines it:
met·a·phys·ics
ˌmedəˈfiziks/
noun
  • the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
  • abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality.
Let's analyse the above. First, the most noticeable thing, in my opinion, is the notion that it deals with something that has "no basis" in reality.

Of what use could metaphysics possibly have if it had no such basis?

Already we have a prime example of a popular misunderstanding of metaphysics, and in turn philosophy. According to mainstream knowledge, only science, not philosophy, can have actual basis in reality. Only by utility of empirical information can we state something ultimately true about reality. Nearly everyone around us operates under this assumption. Metaphysics is thus reduced to a subject that is, while perhaps interesting, ultimately fruitless mumbo-jumbo.

The truth is, metaphysics precede science in fundamental basis in reality. This is implied by the first part of the definition: that it deals with the first principles. Science (the study of the observed world) is secondary to being, cause, identity, etc. These principles are more fundamental than science in the same way that atoms are more fundamental than the things that comprise of atoms.

With that said:
Bobo wrote:You say any perceived form will need contrast with what it is not. You're attributing necessety, keeping with the analogies for a bit, if in seeing things naturally you see shadows accompanying every thing, would it be correct to say that a thing needs its shadow, if so turn the lights out, so where exactly is the need? There doesn't seem to be any need in perception itself too, the contrast is more like a byproduct of it.
Scientifically speaking, any other form of sensory perception (feel, smell, etc.) is enough for it's existence.

However, a more interesting question to the philosopher would be, what would be the need(s) for the existence of any thing at all? In consideration of the first principles, we could talk about being (e.g. the presence of an observer), identity (e.g. a thing cannot exist without identification), causation (e.g. identification of a thing is necessarily caused), and so on.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

Russell wrote: Of what use could metaphysics possibly have if it had no such basis?
Indeed, I think scientism is a bankrupt form of philosophy as it doesn't account to some forms of knowledge (and broadly speaking 'science' just means knowledge), that doesn't save metaphysics out of the possibility of being without basis, if it were only subjective for example, if there's one true metaphysics and the basis for it is found there's nothing that would make it impossible of it being scientifically investigated.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:There's causality, meaning that every time we single out a "cause", we just keep having causality. No need to write recursively, it's a principle
I will change the concepts for a while to try to make it more clear where your fault is. Instead of cause and effect let's say that things beginnings and ends, you are saying that any beginning must have a beginning and your conclusion is that things must be without a beginning, they must be beginningless and therefore also endless. So you start positing beginnings and ends to things to posit the very opposite that they are beginningless, without beggining. In what sense would this resemble wisdom?

With the concept of cause and effect your equivocation lies is mistaking the proposition that 'every effect has a cause' with 'every effect is a cause'. The first maintains the distinction of cause and effect, the second fuses them. As you were moving from beginning (or cause) to beginning of beginning to beginninglessness, you're moving from causes to cause/effect to infinite. Every time we single out a cause we have an effect not causality.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Russell Parr »

Bobo wrote:
Russell wrote: Of what use could metaphysics possibly have if it had no such basis?
Indeed, I think scientism is a bankrupt form of philosophy as it doesn't account to some forms of knowledge (and broadly speaking 'science' just means knowledge), that doesn't save metaphysics out of the possibility of being without basis, if it were only subjective for example, if there's one true metaphysics and the basis for it is found there's nothing that would make it impossible of it being scientifically investigated.
As science is a subcategory of philosophy, and philosophy is purely abstract logic, scientific proof can only occur within the realms of science. Science can only provide examples as an aid in understanding and explaining philosophical truths.

_____

It is more or less a matter of perspective. Perceiving reality from the typical dualistic/egoistic standpoint, in which the fundamental premise is "self and other", is the natural inclination in the development of sustained consciousness, from youthful years all the way til death. This is the human experience. From this perspective, causes and effects, boundaries, beginnings and ends, any imaginable sorts of form, exist. This is reality as most everyone knows and experiences.

On the other hand, from an abstract perspective, indeed a very specific abstract perspective, in which the demarcations of the experienced dualistic/egoistic reality are perceived to be an illusory trick of the mind, consequently the boundaries between "self and other" disappear, as well as all duality, and one perceives formlessness.

This perspective is labeled 'abstract' in respects to the conventional manner of perceiving reality: it can only be conjured up in the mind. The tricky part is making sure that this perspective is developed in total consistency with what we know to be absolutely true about reality (which turn out to be abstract concepts as well). The aforementioned idea "the 'things' of reality are an illusory trick of the mind" does not come about by random desire. It is born from an understanding of the way consciousness perceives things.

We humans deal with, in some way or another, dualistic/egoistic 'reality' for as long as there is awareness, so abstract perspectives can certainly seem to hold no water in telling us what actually makes up the fabric of reality. It takes a lot of deep, careful thought on the matter before one might realize that there exists an abstract perspective, consistent through and through with honest understanding, that is the most accurate perspective possible in consideration of the what reality ultimately is.

Short version: Suspend the naturally dependency on everyday experiences for a bit and give abstract thought a real chance, and you might come to see what "truth" really is.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

Russell wrote:As science is a subcategory of philosophy
Like in natural philosophy?
Russell wrote:philosophy is purely abstract logic
I'm sorry, this is factually incorrect.
Russell wrote:scientific proof can only occur within the realms of science.
I think you are choosing to use the word science way more restrictively then it is commonly used, by the way you are using the word and if you were to be consistent - there's no such thing as a scientific proof, proof is a concept of logics. And if you said so I would tend to agree with you otherwise you are mixing the restricted view of science (observation and measurements) with logics.
Russell wrote: Science can only provide examples as an aid in understanding and explaining philosophical truths.
Wasn't science a sub-category of philosophy just moments ago? It seems that you just want to put your religion out of the bounds of rational discourse like most other religions.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Russell Parr »

Bobo wrote:
Russell wrote:As science is a subcategory of philosophy
Like in natural philosophy?
As in, natural philosophy (science) is a branch of philosophy.
philosophy is purely abstract logic
I'm sorry, this is factually incorrect.
Perhaps this "fact" that you know about philosophy is flat out wrong? How exactly would you describe organized thought?
scientific proof can only occur within the realms of science.
I think you are choosing to use the word science way more restrictively then it is commonly used, by the way you are using the word and if you were to be consistent - there's no such thing as a scientific proof, proof is a concept of logics. And if you said so I would tend to agree with you otherwise you are mixing the restricted view of science (observation and measurements) with logics.
The way I choose to use the word science is consistent with the origins of it, and in context of a proper understanding of its relationship with philosophy. Sure, I didn't exactly use "proof" properly here, as there is no such thing as absolute proof in science. Proof indeed belongs to logic alone, which is why "scientific proof" (or scientific evidence, as I intended to portray), can only provide evidence of logical proof.
Science can only provide examples as an aid in understanding and explaining philosophical truths.
Wasn't science a sub-category of philosophy just moments ago? It seems that you just want to put your religion out of the bounds of rational discourse like most other religions.
I assume you make this comment on the basis of the nitpick you made regarding my phrase "scientific proof", so I'll forgive your religion comment.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

Russell wrote:Perhaps this "fact" that you know about philosophy is flat out wrong? How exactly would you describe organized thought?
You're done in 'abstract', the very existence of abstract things is denied relevance in some systems of philosophy, it is a (quite huge, depending on what you mean by abstract) matter of contention within philosophy itself, the part cannot be taken to be the whole. Informally it could be quite fine as a description but 'purely' ups it a notch for me.

I wouldn't mind with using 'organized thought' to describe it.
Russell wrote:The way I choose to use the word science is consistent with the origins of it, and in context of a proper understanding of its relationship with philosophy.
Actually natural philosophy is what it was called back in the day and scientia is the latin for knowledge.
Russell wrote:I assume you make this comment on the basis of the nitpick youï made regarding my phrase "scientific proof", so I'll forgive your religion comment
Haha thanks for being generous, really.

You said science only aids philosophical truths, I am reminded of the quantum physics guy again, I think he believed something like that too. Anyhow I think will follow your advice and give it a try to see what 'truth' really is for now.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Russell Parr »

Bobo wrote:
Russell wrote:Perhaps this "fact" that you know about philosophy is flat out wrong? How exactly would you describe organized thought?
You're done in 'abstract', the very existence of abstract things is denied relevance in some systems of philosophy, it is a (quite huge, depending on what you mean by abstract) matter of contention within philosophy itself, the part cannot be taken to be the whole. Informally it could be quite fine as a description but 'purely' ups it a notch for me.
I'll give you that. My choosing of words could be improved.
Actually natural philosophy is what it was called back in the day and scientia is the latin for knowledge.
Interesting, yes, but what I am mostly wanting to point out is that science necessarily comes after, and out of philosophy.

Science is obviously very useful in its own right. The tragedy is that science, in most eyes, is seen to have outgrown philosophy in some way, detaching from it and is now perceived in a much different light. From there we have the widespread belief that no truth but subjective truth exists, and thus the materialistic, postmodernist attitude that runs rampant today.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Russell wrote:Interesting, yes, but what I am mostly wanting to point out is that science necessarily comes after, and out of philosophy.
Also interesting, only seemingly contradicting and possibly slightly beside the point is how "metaphysics" originally was meant to mean "after physics".
  • “Ta meta ta phusika”—“the after the physicals” or “the ones after the physical ones”—the “physical ones” being the books contained in what we now call Aristotle's Physics. The title was probably meant to warn students of Aristotle's philosophy that they should attempt Metaphysics only after they had mastered “the physical ones”, the books about nature or the natural world—that is to say, about change, for change is the defining feature of the natural world. -- source
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Russell Parr »

Thanks Diebert, my (not so) profound knowledge of the history of words is shining bright now! :)

It's interesting to see how the meaning of words evolve over time into something different or even opposite of the original. It is one of the obstacles of language in conveyance of meaning. What choice do I have but to try to improve.
I wrote:Interesting, yes, but what I am mostly wanting to point out is that science necessarily comes after, and out of philosophy.
To try and explain this better: We can jump right into learning and practicing science without any knowledge of the core philosophical principles, because we naturally operate under such core principles. For example, we don't need to actually learn the meaning of A=A in order to use it, because it is an inherent property of consciousness. Science is developed on top of the core principles.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

Russell wrote:It doesn't take much to see logic has almost zero place in modern religion. It is constantly preached that "human logic" is far too limited to understand the world and reality. Thus it is said that we must rely on the invisible God of [insert local church], with blind faith.

Spirituality is therefore above and beyond what it is to be human (i.e. the human ego), and logic is the means to take one beyond. Anything less is succumbing to humanly desires. Sentimentality is to spirituality, as delusion and irrationality is to logic.
Here you wrote that it is preached that human logic is limited and religious people must rely on god with blind faith. Next you wrote that the human ego is too limited and logic must be relied upon. It seems that you just substituted god with logic, while it appears to be different from a religious position it may be seen as another religious position substituting one god by another god where logic takes the place of faith as an immediate something for belief.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Bobo »

Diebert wrote:The reason I said the "infinite" was not an entity or quality would be rooted in the idea that we're speaking about the totality without any division.
You said that the infinite is without division, and that the active counterpart of it lies in seeing it as two infinites, one left and one right I suppose if you are thinking temporally, if the infinite can be divided why not add up and say that it is spacially infinite too. You might get into Zeno's paradox but they were devised to show how movement is illusory. If you want only the undivided to be infinite you shouldn't make two illusories infinities as that is just adding ambiguity where it's not necessary.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Russell Parr »

Bobo wrote:
Russell wrote:It doesn't take much to see logic has almost zero place in modern religion. It is constantly preached that "human logic" is far too limited to understand the world and reality. Thus it is said that we must rely on the invisible God of [insert local church], with blind faith.

Spirituality is therefore above and beyond what it is to be human (i.e. the human ego), and logic is the means to take one beyond. Anything less is succumbing to humanly desires. Sentimentality is to spirituality, as delusion and irrationality is to logic.
Here you wrote that it is preached that human logic is limited and religious people must rely on god with blind faith. Next you wrote that the human ego is too limited and logic must be relied upon. It seems that you just substituted god with logic, while it appears to be different from a religious position it may be seen as another religious position substituting one god by another god where logic takes the place of faith as an immediate something for belief.
Yet logic and faith are quite different. Faith represents a clinging towards something one isn't quite sure of. Logic, in contrast, is the way of absolute verification.

If only people had more faith in logic, especially when it comes to God!

Edit: Perhaps a better way to define faith is a clinging towards something that is difficult, or counterintuitive to believe. That way there is no contradiction in the phrase "faith in logic."
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Spirituality and Logic

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Bobo wrote:
Diebert wrote:The reason I said the "infinite" was not an entity or quality would be rooted in the idea that we're speaking about the totality without any division.
You said that the infinite is without division, and that the active counterpart of it lies in seeing it as two infinites, one left and one right I suppose if you are thinking temporally, if the infinite can be divided why not add up and say that it is spacially infinite too. You might get into Zeno's paradox but they were devised to show how movement is illusory. If you want only the undivided to be infinite you shouldn't make two illusories infinities as that is just adding ambiguity where it's not necessary.
Well you're absolutely right about that! What's left to disagree? Perhaps ambiguity will always be introduced though when something is being said about it? In my view that's part and parcel of speaking about this topic in the first place. One example I keep on bringing up recently is the famous but sometimes misunderstood stuff about "the Tao which is being spoken of is not the eternal Tao" -- which is another rather ambiguous but still creative way to speak of "two Tao's", namely the one that always is under consideration and the actual infinite. But there cannot be a false one separate from the real one, obviously, because even a false reality would still remain reality in the most fundamental sense. A game of perspectives?
Locked