B1:
L: Are men “male egos”, children or small animals?
I could argue that I am a phallic woman, which would make me a male ego, and then you could ask me if I am a cannibal.
B1: Most men confuse the "male ego" with the identity of who they are. They are gullible enough to allow others to determine the identity as this is tied into appearances.
I would like to get away for a moment from this artifact of religious buddhism, this be-all and end-all generic "truth of" “appearances”, which melts everything into an indistinct and meaningless whole. You know, the pseudo-wisdom in adopting as a standalone doctrine “every thing is an appearance”. Blah-blah, fucken blah. Male ego is an appearance, identity is an appearance, et cetera, ad nauseam.
If we do that, as it is, it’s not even clear that you yourself recognise a distinction between male ego and what might rightly constitute self-identity, except only by implying such a self-identity exists... somewhere, somehow, outside of the clutches of ego.
What’s of potential relevance here is, of course, the origin of ego, i.e., of the “psychoanalytic” approach to (and as) “the truth of the unconscious”. In particular interest, of the three registers, the Symbolic Register. This Register is the totality of language as signifiers and referents, the former being fluid in meaning insofar as such a word’s meaning is not strictly limited in the psyche to its material referent, a material object. For example, let’s take the word "penis". For as long as it refers only to the male organ, it is a referent. When, however, it is disembodied as an organ-in-itself and given signification (as the phallus, for example) it becomes capable of mystical powers far beyond its organic function! as is captured neatly by the idea “penis envy”; the corresponding sexualised signification is that the vagina signifies a
lack and
that lack is that females (the signified "woman"), not having a penis, are, therefore, lacking
some thing. Fuck knows what and in whose psyche because, you know, we’re dealing with the “truth of the unconscious”, but there you have it.
Now, what I would like to know is, how does this fit in or contrast with your idea of male ego that “men are gullible enough to allow others to determine the identity as this is tied to appearances”?
You could not hunt what was not there.
Indeed. (: How does one hunt a
lack, eh?
The children and small animal thing was to point to the defenseless victim role. Allow others to determine your value, choices and world view and you have been victimized.
But do you mean to suggest children, small animals and predators are such out of a
choice of identities? Aren't all children victimised in that way by their parents, society?
Are you a cannibal?
Only in the unconscious, where I am also a
lion... (:
L: *But you are not describing religion here. You are describing philosophy. Do you make no distinction between religion and philosophy? I do: religion does not ask “the big question”, it is a belief that it has the answer to “it”, which comes to view by virtue of the evidence (logical and empirical) against it.
B1: Expand your thought here so that we can be on the same page as to definitions. Where do you draw the line of distinction between religion and philosophy.
My experience with religion is that they attempt to answer some questions and do not claim to have them all.
I will use your definitions once I know what they are.
Hm. How about if I add this: Philosophy requires no rituals. It demands only clarity and ingenuity of thought—insight. Contrast this with the study of “holy” (?) texts and prayer (to what/whom?), which is not the same as meditation, by the way, by definition. Since when we speak in referents, one assumes conventional definitions apply unless otherwise specified, would you please explain how meditation and prayer are the same thing?
L: Sure. Yet, the proposition that science may “get stuck in a belief system” is not the same as science is a belief system. It is philosophy and science itself which determine which is what.
B1: I agree. I was refering to the scientific community and if we are going to remain consistent, we must say the religious community also. Both have their methods.
The scientific community uses the scientific method to discover the how question.
The “how” question necessarily addresses the why, since it is hardly possible to answer one without the other.
The religious community uses a method (usually the study of holy texts and prayer/meditation) to discover the why question.
Where does the answer come from? Oh, look! It's a "where" question! (((:
L: They overlap because they are dialectically opposed.
B1: It is akin to listening to two different language speakers trying to communicate. One is speaking Chinese and the other is speaking Greek.
赦免 ?
B1: But as I said, they overlap and the lines do blur at times.
L: Well, let’s just say we’re working on that... (:
B1: Yes indeed, we are doing that right now.
Lets use an example that most everyone here should be familiar with.
How do things form?
Science - Cause and effect is how things form.
Religion/philosophy - God did it, the void, it has always been and so on.
It is my contention that the "how" for science above is also the "why", and I maintain the above distinction I made between religion and philosophy.
Why do things form?
Science - What was the question?
Religion/philosophy - Consciousness desire, God`s desire, things are not really there and so on.
See reply to the first of your examples.
L: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-- Einstein
The question was not about “what works for me”. It was about what follows from your reasoning and whether or not it is logically consistent with what you quoted above.
B1: Science is lame by itself because it never asks 'why' things are the way they are. You can say electricity seeks ground and this is why you must tie in a circuit. You could follow by asking 'why' does electricity seek ground and you get answers like "the laws of physics' and you are right back to the 'how'.
It cripples the individual asking the 'why' question because you have not answered who it is asking. Who is asking is intimately connected to 'why' as why contains volition and will.
What?
You can’t answer the “why” question unless you assume there is a who there to ask about/about it?
(: Interesting you should say that, really...
~
Religion/philosophy is blind because it never asks 'how'. How does electricity seek ground? God does it, the void does it, there is no electricity and so on. How is in the realm of empirical observation and this, is the domain of science.
You claim that religion asks “
the why” question and science “how” and I have stated that for religion “the why” is god. For science, it’s demonstrably causality. And between them philosophy has a field day.
But, when you say religion asks “the why” question and science “how”, and Einstein says, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”, given his views on a belief in god, is he not simply saying that religion necessarily preceded science and that without science religion will never see the nature of its own truth and understanding?
In other words, is it not possible that Einstein too suggests that science is in dialectical opposition to the truth of god, and in the classically Hegelian sense! The “truth and understanding of religion (god)” as thesis, the “truth and understanding of science (man)” as antithesis ending with the famous Hegelian synthesis, “god is man”?