Understanding God

[Alex Jacob]

Don't kid yourself, Diebert. Don't fool yourself for the sake of your front. You are far more transparent than you must think---far less opaque perhaps---and that is a compliment. This is the wrong moment to take refuge---a false-refuge---behind smoke and mirrors.

"Only then the bigger view opens up which in comparison would make your silly questions seem like an almost forgotten childhood's game."

One of the core characteristics of our dear Founders and a characteristic of the intellectual pretensionism of the forum, is a deeply-ensconced superiority complex. It is adolescent and misplaced. You are very much at home here, it would seem.

It was not at all a silly question, it is in fact one of the best questions that can be asked. Not that it is really possible to answer it. But---you didn't really answer it, now did you?

;-)

[Kelly Jones]

I understand the process of natural selection, adaptation and mutation *as* the Intelligence of the Unverse (God) manifesting locally as a perpetually ongoing process. There are *very* subtle and complicated factors at work constantly in, for instance the changes in genetic code (DNA interacting with RNA for instance,) and how these changes are passed on to progeny as "gifts" of better adaptation to very specific changes in the environment. This process IS intelligenge at work.

Extremely careful vs Sloppy Copying

Knotted DNA

Degenerative diseases

Cancer

Intelligence has no part to play in this, except that of the scientists observing.

[Kelly Jones]

KJ: Thomas McFarlane, who you regard as a reliable source as to your Master's idea of consciousness, wrote:

Wolff's term "Consciousness" here does not mean consciousness as opposed to unconsciousness. Nor does Wolff use the word "Consciousness" here as a consciousness involving any particular structure or mode of experience, such as the structure of intentionality, or the mode of our typical experience based on the distinction between subject and object.

Italics added.

Mikiel: He goes on to say:

...Rather, the meaning of the term "Consciousness" here is THAT which is the primordial ground and essential nature of all modes and forms of experience, both subjective and objective. In Wolff's words,

The One, nonderivative Reality, is THAT which I have symbolized by 'Consciousness-without-an-object.' This is Root Consciousness, per se, to be distinguished from consciousness as content or as state, on the one hand, and from consciousness as an attribute of a Self or Atman, in any sense whatsoever. It is Consciousness of which nothing can be predicated in the privative sense save abstract Being. Upon It all else depends, while It remains self-existent.

Thus, Consciousness is primary, i.e., it is first, prior to everything. Not before or first in the sense of time or temporal sequence, but prior in the sense of not being secondary to or derivative from anything else.

Thanks for providing extra information. Note that he says nothing can be predicated on THAT.

Predicate

In other words, McFarlane's saying of Wolff's idea of consciousness (ie. 'THAT'): it cannot said to be intelligent, or not. It cannot be said to 'have plans' or not.

It's not an abstract Being he's talking about, like a human being or even human being itself. It means existence. The abstraction, Being.

Kelly: In other words, his view is that THAT does not itself make plans, and is not itself intelligent.

Mikiel: So you pluck quotes out of context and put your own spin on them .... about "making plans" and "not itself intelligent." In full context above, conscuiousness is the a-priori Intelligece and Creator of all "things" which then become "objects of consciousness."

You have misunderstand the context.

[Kelly Jones]

Wolff's use of the word prior has nothing to do with a priori reasoning, Mikiel. As Wolff describes it, what is 'prior' is actually prior to a priori reasoning, although realisation of it necessarily comes afterwards:

Thus, Consciousness is primary, i.e., it is first, prior to everything. Not before or first in the sense of time or temporal sequence, but prior in the sense of not being secondary to or derivative from anything else.

In full context above, conscuiousness is the a-priori Intelligece and Creator of all "things" which then become "objects of consciousness."

A priori in philosophy refers to deductive reasoning. It means not requiring empirical evidence in order to establish an identity as true. It means, 'from the previous', referring to previous lines of reasoning in the mind and completely independent of observation. A posteriori means, 'from the following, or the one behind', referring to the way empirical proof cannot be found in the premise or hypothesis, but only in the observations made afterwards.

[Carl G]

Extremely careful vs Sloppy Copying

Knotted DNA

Degenerative diseases

Cancer

Intelligence has no part to play in this, except that of the scientists observing.

Why? Simply because you pronounce it? How do you know?

[Kelly Jones]

If they're signs of intelligence, then it's a malicious intelligence!

Fancy putting knots into DNA strings, knowingly causing great pain; playing havoc in people's health by enabling cancerous cells to copy as actively as non-cancerous cells; and the like.

Alright, it's possible that DNA is designed by a sinister intelligence, rather than a kind one that likes to give gifts. But it's even more possible that there is no intelligent design in DNA, but a random process of interactions that result in certain things becoming more likely than others (what evolving literally means).

[Carl G]

If they're signs of intelligence, then it's a malicious intelligence!

Fancy putting knots into DNA strings, knowingly causing great pain; playing havoc in people's health by enabling cancerous cells to copy as actively as non-cancerous cells; and the like.

Alright, it's possible that DNA is designed by a sinister intelligence, rather than a kind one that likes to give gifts.

That's just plain religious imagining, thinking of God as good or bad without considering the value system we add to the mix.

But it's even more possible that there is no intelligent design in DNA, but a random process of interactions that result in certain things becoming more likely than others (what evolving literally means).

And this is just a recourse to scientific imagining, the atheistic mantra of random interactions and likelihoods.

Not a very sure thing, then, is it?

[Kelly Jones]

Well, by design we mean two things: creating something according to a plan, and the thing functions according to plan. Neither the design process, nor the post-design use or function, are random happenings.

Meaning, if something has been designed, it's not a random occurrence, happening purely by chance. It has a characteristic identity showing patterns of appearance and behaviour, as well as of having some use (e.g. a lottery's randomness is deliberate and useful).

So, if you wish to hypothesize that God is an intelligent designer, and plans all things, then God has to intend for cells to malfunction somewhat randomly, and then be copied, creating a lot of preventable human pain. From a human perspective, that is sadistic.

Of course, the humans could just be micro-cells in some Great Plan, and are meaningless in that larger perspective. Nevertheless, human pain and suffering is intended as a useful part of that plan.

Alternately, if you wish to hypothesize that God doesn't plan all things, then God is an Alien-Creator that is only responsible for a few items of the Universe, much like a dabbler in scientific experiments. Also, you can hypothesize that God isn't intelligent at all - which ends up approaching chance anyway...

KJ: But it's even more possible that there is no intelligent design in DNA, but a random process of interactions that result in certain things becoming more likely than others (what evolving literally means).

CG: And this is just a recourse to scientific imagining, the atheistic mantra of random interactions and likelihoods.

No, it's expressing the logical principle of causation. One thing is certain to occur, and another thing not at all certain; yet what that thing is, will remain uncertain and subject to chance.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This is the wrong moment to take refuge---a false-refuge---behind smoke and mirrors.

The problem with giving a long-winded detailed response with loads of examples and personal anecdotes is that it will most often accomplish the opposite of what is intended. It would be like showing a 60 minutes porn-flick when the object is to teach courtly love.

[Talking about movies, I saw yesterday the movie 'the Fall' by Tarsem Singh and the main cute 'saving grace' character was named 'Alexandria'. The movie seems right up into your alley with its grand visuals, unusual script and hidden Judeo-Christian themes]

"Only then the bigger view opens up which in comparison would make your silly questions seem like an almost forgotten childhood's game."

One of the core characteristics of our dear Founders and a characteristic of the intellectual pretensionism of the forum, is a deeply-ensconced superiority complex. It is adolescent and misplaced. You are very much at home here, it would seem.

It's rather difficult, perhaps impossible for many to differentiate between a condescending, wanna-be superiority stance and the short, direct replies from someone fully understanding your position, telling you without sugarcoating that he left it already behind, without any rancune.

It was not at all a silly question, it is in fact one of the best questions that can be asked. Not that it is really possible to answer it. But---you didn't really answer it, now did you?

Really, the questions were literally those I asked when I was a child. It's not an attempt to demean or belittle but it's an encouragement to at least entertain the possibility there's a bigger view possible, more mature, more complete - that merely encompasses the kid's play - even now finally can fully appreciate the child's play for its function and its raw potential.

Good luck.

[Iolaus]

Diebert,

You inserted the word definitely here which seems incorrect. According to common models consciousness is defined as a result of various biochemical reactions. Any other model of consciousness, the ones you imply, have just not arrived yet in the scientific world. Why would you expect science to take these non-existing models into consideration?

Diebert, first of all, perhaps your exposure is different somehow, but I can assure you that it is the mainstream teaching of evolution that its processes are purposeless and capable of giving rise to life without any intention or intelligence.
Therefore, all those religious and Mikiel, although they often state that they believe in "evolution" they really do not mean the same thing by the term and prefer not to take the logic of their proposition to the end - which is intelligent design.
Furthermore, the research into consciousness is a separate field, and there is much of interest that suggests consciousness may be primary. That is why it is referred to as the hard problem of consciousness.
Science is often biased, because of their attitude toward what they don't know. There is a defensiveness and hostility to nonmaterialist possibilities.

As for atoms and molecules being fully sufficient to account for the universe in the eyes of certain scientists: such remark only shows your ignorance of modern physics. There's still a lot unknown and even the current popular models go way beyond the atom to reach for quite esoteric realms.

I am not sure what the reference of physics is about...what sort of esoterics?

That that you use the word pseudo-science is a give-away as to a rigid attitude.

No, the term is well defined and describing very precise anything claiming to be science but not following its method.

Here in America, the term is used to avoid discussing the issues regarding intelligent design versus the mainstream interpretation of Darwinian evolution. It is false. Of course they are using the scientific method.

Your reaction on the word seems to express a defensive attitude - as if your favorite babies are insulted to be no 'real men'. Get over it, Anna, many of the favorites I nourished I had to let go as plain wrong.

Well, there is about to be another one. It is not me who is defensive - but the academic establishment. It is defensive and offensive to use ad hominem instead of engaging the issues - which of course they cannot do. And they are hardly behaving in the 'real spirit of science.' The projection is all through your post.

Intelligence and 'profound' analysis are in itself no indicators of valid science. Actually one could assert that pseudo-science is produced as a rule by unusually intelligent people and their conclusions appearing as 'profound'. That's an important part of the underlying psychology, I suspect.

Oh, please. Scientists are wrong all the time. This does not make the various arguments into pseudo-science. If that is all you have to say on the topic, then, as I suspected, you have little to say and are poorly informed.

All the trouble at the time was not because of suppression [ a convenient myth ] - it was mainly about blind ego corrupting even the brilliancy of those few good men.

That is a very one-sided point of view. At least with Galileo, that was part of the picture, but hardly all of it. And those are but a few examples, of the general rule and pattern, continuing right up to the present. The majority are wrong, resist new ideas, and hound their superior scientists who try to advance science. Science would indeed progress orders of magnitude faster if not for this ego problem.

This was in response to your statement about a kind of evolution in which processes are unguided and blind and accidental which religious people would have difficulty accepting. My question was if these people would have similar problems with seeing meteorology [studying the evolution of hurricanes or atmospheric oscillations that run for years] as blind or unguided by a guiding intelligent principle that decides "rain here", "storm there".

I still find your comment here incongruous. The weather is very complex, the entire universe is very complex, and appears to be an intelligently designed bedrock for life forms. Michael Denton lays this out very well in his book Nature's Destiny. At the same time, we cannot compare the world's weather patterns to a living cell.

That was not my point. If it's unexpected then it means the model is faulty or incomplete.

That's exactly my point. If one reads some material from the other side, a great and I must say amusing case can be made for the lack of real predictions in evolutionary theory, and their constant surprises at what does turn up. However, the theory of evolution proves to be unfalsifiable, for no setbacks are sufficient to make its adherents take stock of it. This is one clue that it is a faith, or perhaps we might say, a substitute for faith.

But you're rather sure consciousness does it. Doesn't that sound familiar to 'God created the earth in seven days but I don't know how - I just believe'. Or: 'God wrote the Holy Book himself, I don't know how, or what the errors mean'.

No, Diebert, it doesn't sound like that at all. One spends years reading and pondering to come up with a personal worldview, one that is subject to revision, and uses many tools of intellect and intuition and one's deepest experience to come to such ideas.
You are throwing in the towel - because some people believe absurdities and don't examine their absurdities, is no reason to give up. The difference in attitude toward such things in zen versus fundamentalist Christians or Islam is huge.

Thereby suggesting you know exactly what random processes can or cannot create. This rigid thought is exactly what science is trying to challenge!

Stop projecting already! "Science" is rigidly resisting this very examination - what can random processes really accomplish? This is precisely the question, it is a scientific and mathematical question. Yet another reason why the mainstream Darwinians are enmeshed in faith - you see, the hallmark of the kind of believers you mention above is lack of examining. The more you scrutinize, say, the belief that the Koran could have been written by a perfect and omnipotent mind, what with the errors and all, the more troubled the scrutinizer will become. This is why such religions punish open inquiry. And modern 'science' is right now punishing as best they can those who are really scrutinizing evolutionary theory. The scrutinizers are those promoting intelligent design.

How would a biological cell look like when it would be designed by engineers? You sound like you just report what you feel and nothing more.

I thought you said you were informed? Feelings? What has this to do with feelings? If I did not read on the topic, what would I know about the cell? If I did not know about it, I would find Darwinian evolution plausible. Engineering and design terminology are used constantly and consistently throughout the entire field, by all the bona fide mainstream highly acclaimed Darwinists - because that is what it looks like and those are the descriptive words that come to mind.

But these great disembodied intelligences might also manifest through reason and science, through random processes and cause us to wonder if they really exist or if they are an artifact of the way our brain functions.

And thus the scientific inquiry into the mathematics of probability and information theory - to find out if they really are behind this stuff. But you would prefer to say there is no way we can know, right? And that is because, as all faiths which avoid scrutiny, this is the particular method of avoiding that Darwinism has invented. But it isn't logical or very scientific. (Other religions use guilt or what-have-you. Or, "we cannot know God's will.") See the parallels?

It's successful in making exact predictions and seeing the evidence turn up. Which faith is like that?

My view is that they have not been very successful.

I think the idea that it's "mindless" or "purposeless" is a human reaction, a personal evaluation. It's not like that for people like Dawkins. Science doesn't conclude some 'mindlessness' or 'purposeless'. It's not in its vocabulary.

You are quite wrong. That is exactly how it is for Dawkins.

No, I was wondering why anyone with an interest in science could somehow suggest there's a better scientific theory than evolution somewhere to work with.

Because I want truth, not fantasy. Intelligent design is clean, like zen. It might not stay that way, human nature being what it is, but that's how it is for now.

There doesn't have to be a better theory if by theory you mean you want answers. If you insist on answers when there are none, you get stories, which is how the majority of mankind copes, and has always coped, with the true fact of our existence:

We do not know what we are, how we are, where we are. It is a profound and disconcerting state of ignorance. But it's the truth. For now.

And there is absolutely no reason to suppose that because someone is a skeptic or atheist that they no longer use the same tricks to cope. It's just different stories.

If you're worshiping science then you already found your God.

No! No! I do not worship science - only the atheists do that. I said that science is like theology because I feel profound reverence and awe at this existence of ours - which is God everywhere - and science uncovers the majesty of it. Science is about understanding reality and reality is God.

[Kelly Jones]

I can assure you that it is the mainstream teaching of evolution that its processes are purposeless and capable of giving rise to life without any intention or intelligence. Thereore, all those religious and Mikiel, although they often state that they believe in "evolution" they really do not mean the same thing by the term and prefer not to take the logic of their proposition to the end - which is intelligent design. Furthermore, the research into consciousness is a separate field, and there is much of interest that suggests consciousness may be primary.

If consciousness is primary, meaning, present in all things, and consciousness is always associated with intelligence and deliberation, then the following problems arise:

- there would be no such thing as unintelligence and blind happenstance; yet there is.
- consciousness would not be linked with brains; yet it is.
- there would be no I or unifying agent of consciousness, because all things would have their own consciousness (and yet, atoms are divisible into smaller parts, so where do we draw the line?); yet there is.
- nonconscious or subconscious happenings would not exist; yet they do.
- all things would be overtly engaged in politicking about their rights, each having their own plans and purposes, and there would be a lot more unpredictability, conflict, and obvious use of consensus decision-making in the environment, e.g. you would have to tell your heart to beat, and engage in consensus decision-making - but of course, all of this requires agents of consciousness.

So it's an impossible concept.

[Iolaus]

Kelly,

Make assumptions as to what I think. I don't think I've ever said that consciousness could only happen by evolving as it has evolved on earth.

Then I have assumed indeed, that you disagreed in no particulars with QRS (not absolutely sure about R).

But I suppose the main thing to ask here is, why are you equating the scientific theory of evolution with the logical principle of causation?

I'm talking about sufficient causes. Not causation itself. A bicycle frame of cardboard would not participate in a causal stream leading to your successful bike ride.

Now I see why you posted the Huang Po extract. 'Mind' for Huang Po is not consciousness, but the nature of all things. It's a word to describe the nature of all things, including what is experienced in consciousness.

As I recall, the essay also included some tools (insights) that would help one in deconstructing one's belief system, first of all by being able to spot the tricks of the ego-mind.

If you don't understand all there is to understand about the nature of the Universe (the Totality), then you don't understand it at all.

Methinks you fool yourself.

KJ: You are asking how the Totality comes into existence, ie. what causes it. But if you realize that it includes all causes, the question vanishes. There was no time when it wasn't.

That it includes all causes may be correct, but that does not mean I understand it, nor that seeing the logic of the above is satisfying.

You are talking of the ego.

I'm talking of releasing ego.

Link here.

Thank you. It's a great link.

[Iolaus]

Mikiel,

I understand the process of natural selection, adaptation and mutation *as* the Intelligence of the Unverse (God) manifesting locally as a perpetually ongoing process.

That is fine, you are in good company, and I would subscribe to something like this myself. But that is not what I am arguing against. I am arguing against the strict but academically accepted and taught idea that evolution proceeds entirely without any need for consciousness, intention, will, or intelligence. That is a hallmark of the theory.

Are you familiar with the intricacies now revealed in the field of genetic study and discovery? If not, how is it that you say it is inadequate in its explanations of genetic adaptation?

That these intricacies did not self-organize in a soul-less universe of dead matter.

[Kelly Jones]

KJ: But I suppose the main thing to ask here is, why are you equating the scientific theory of evolution with the logical principle of causation?

AO: I'm talking about sufficient causes. Not causation itself. A bicycle frame of cardboard would not participate in a causal stream leading to your successful bike ride.

Let's get this matter as clear as we can.

You wish to prove that I have a belief system. To do so, one would have to prove my reasoning to be false in regards to the nature of Totality. In so doing, one would have to prove why a quest to understand the cause for the Totality is not meaningless.

What you have attempted so far, is posting Huang Po's essay. This is not sufficient proof. You would need to explain what ideas therein prove 1/ that my reasoning regarding the nature of the Totality is false; 2/ that the Totality is caused. Saying "you are fooling yourself" is not proof. If you think this is true, you need to explain why - at least if you wish to be using reasons to correct me rather than blind, unrelated, and random beliefs.

KJ: You are asking how the Totality comes into existence, ie. what causes it. But if you realize that it includes all causes, the question vanishes. There was no time when it wasn't.

AO: That it includes all causes may be correct, but that does not mean I understand it

What don't you understand?

[mikiel]

Wolff's use of the word prior has nothing to do with a priori reasoning, Mikiel. As Wolff describes it, what is 'prior' is actually prior to a priori reasoning, although realisation of it necessarily comes afterwards:

Thus, Consciousness is primary, i.e., it is first, prior to everything. Not before or first in the sense of time or temporal sequence, but prior in the sense of not being secondary to or derivative from anything else.

In full context above, conscuiousness is the a-priori Intelligece and Creator of all "things" which then become "objects of consciousness."

A priori in philosophy refers to deductive reasoning. It means not requiring empirical evidence in order to establish an identity as true. It means, 'from the previous', referring to previous lines of reasoning in the mind and completely independent of observation. A posteriori means, 'from the following, or the one behind', referring to the way empirical proof cannot be found in the premise or hypothesis, but only in the observations made afterwards.

I understand the difference between a-priori *knowing* and a-posteriori *knowing.* This is the broader, epistemological use of the terms, as also used by Merrell-Wolf, not the more restricted sense of the subset a-priori and a-posteriori *reasoning* (which clearly defines the limits of your universe of discourse.)

Here is a quicki from Wiki:

* A priori knowledge is knowledge that is known independently of experience (that is, it is non-empirical).

* A posteriori knowledge is knowledge that is known by experience (that is, it is empirical).

Here is a repeat of a quote from Merrell-Wolff on the subject, which you clearly did not 'grok.'

The One, nonderivative Reality, is THAT which I have symbolized by 'Consciousness-without-an-object.' This is Root Consciousness, per se, to be distinguished from consciousness as content or as state, on the one hand, and from consciousness as an attribute of a Self or Atman, in any sense whatsoever. It is Consciousness of which nothing can be predicated in the privative sense save abstract Being. Upon It all else depends, while It remains self-existent.

I really have lost patience with your insixstence that its *all* about reasoning.

PS... BTW You got this part right:
"As Wolff describes it, what is 'prior' is actually prior to a priori reasoning..."

Exactly. And your ref in the other thread to "A=A" is precisely the knowing a-priori, by direct realization of oneness in Universal Identity that "I Am" is the same "I" in a spiritually awakened person as the universal Identity, the traditional "name of God."
Same "I" as in the middle of my Spirit-name mik I el.

So, when you say "I" you mean "me, myself." When I say "I" i mean "I... God Consciousness manifesting as this individual *and* simultaneously transcending all manifestation, all experience of phenomena-as-content of consciousness.

[Iolaus]

Kelly,

You wish to prove that I have a belief system. To do so, one would have to prove my reasoning to be false in regards to the nature of Totality. In so doing, one would have to prove why a quest to understand the cause for the Totality is not meaningless.

There are many belief systems about a lot of things, not just about the nature of reality itself. You may have a belief in the system of modern medicine, and its paradigms, for example. You seem to have a belief system about values, philosophy and gender.
If you say that a cause cannot be found or understood about the self-caused nature of the totality, that might be right. But I do not think it is meaningless to wish to understand it.

Huang Po's essay, as I already mentioned, may contain some tools in helping a person unravel their belief systems, to watch out for the maneuvers of the mind.
It was not meant as a proof that you have a belief system, nor a refutation of your understanding of the totality.

KJ: You are asking how the Totality comes into existence, ie. what causes it. But if you realize that it includes all causes, the question vanishes. There was no time when it wasn't.

AO: That it includes all causes may be correct, but that does not mean I understand it

What don't you understand?

How is it self-caused. By what mechanism? What is existence?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert, first of all, perhaps your exposure is different somehow, but I can assure you that it is the mainstream teaching of evolution that its processes are purposeless and capable of giving rise to life without any intention or intelligence.

The mainstream does not teach that there's no purpose in life or that there's no God. But it doesn't need much imagination to realize that many people look at the teaching and wonder why they still believe in God or a purpose for mankind if that was solely fueled by the question "where does it all come from" and answered with "it must be God". So it might have effects of this kind but it's simply not correct to claim the theory includes statements on that topic.

Science is often biased, because of their attitude toward what they don't know. There is a defensiveness and hostility to nonmaterialist possibilities.

And it's easy to see why that might be. Where there's a great lack of knowledge, vacuums in understanding, a lot of unfounded ideas rise, a bit like cells forming in a chaotic molecular soup.

"Non-materialist possibilities" are not possibilities in any scientific sense. Science is interested in the universe of possibilities which is only material the moment we want to know something about it. This knowledge is quantification - making it matter. If you really think about this then the word 'non-materialist' shows you the problem: it's fundamentally meaningless.

Here in America, the term is used to avoid discussing the issues regarding intelligent design versus the mainstream interpretation of Darwinian evolution. It is false. Of course they are using the scientific method.

What makes you think I don't know how it's used in America? That's where I learned about the word in the first place! You are narrowing it down to just one discipline, the one you have perhaps most experience with following the debates.

Intelligent design people might follow parts of the scientific method but are breaking and subverting it at the same time. The biggest flaw is visible in the name "intelligent design" which is already a rather specific conclusion in itself. How could any scientist work under such banner? It would be like an institute called "Smoking Causes Cancer Lab" offering evidence on the dangers of smoking in the 70's.

Or take an ID self-definition like: "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence". You're gonna study only those patterns that are 'best explained' already where they originate from? Or one is already concluding they all are a result of ID? Which patterns qualify? Cherry pick? Take the following:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

It 'holds' an a-priori belief, it admits a bias and then calls that a scientific disagreement? No, it's a disagreement what "scientific" means foremost. And there all compatibility and acceptance will stop.

The majority are wrong, resist new ideas, and hound their superior scientists who try to advance science. Science would indeed progress orders of magnitude faster if not for this ego problem.

The problem lies in what you leave out here rather conveniently, as perhaps in your eyes the problem does not exist. But it's huge. And that problem is that 99% of those 'new ideas' (and I'm being generous) turn out again and again to be for most part baloney and a total waste to put any serious time, money or effort in.

Just because there's that 1% of revolutionary good ideas that make it, at some point, into the scientific mainstream does not suddenly justify all the rest as worthwhile to get sunken into.

At the same time, we cannot compare the world's weather patterns to a living cell.

Oh but you can and you should try it! The weather patterns look like a giant factory, combined with all the ocean currents it forms a giant advanced climate control system. It can explain a lot about the present, the past and perhaps the future of our climate, including catastrophic events. Some of the world's largest computers are calculating long term forecasts or backtrack the origin and development of our atmosphere.

And you think it's somehow simpler or less relevant than a living cell? Life is a bit bigger than that, in my view. Lovelock's 'slow life' comes to mind here.

However, the theory of evolution proves to be unfalsifiable, for no setbacks are sufficient to make its adherents take stock of it. This is one clue that it is a faith, or perhaps we might say, a substitute for faith.

I could think of several setbacks that would utterly destroy the theory. But I don't want to start discussing ABC's of evolution theory here so we have to let this pass.

One spends years reading and pondering to come up with a personal worldview, one that is subject to revision, and uses many tools of intellect and intuition and one's deepest experience to come to such ideas.

Fair enough, but all those wonderful personal worldviews do not qualify for science just because one would use so much intellect, intuition and experience. That's my whole point so far. It certainly could qualify for something else of course, worthy of reading, pondering and inspiring.

You are throwing in the towel - because some people believe absurdities and don't examine their absurdities, is no reason to give up.

It's a reason to be strict when applying the scientific method. It's no reason to give up personal beliefs or convictions about intelligent design and stuff. The only thing I'm rejecting here is this strange desire to promote a conviction or belief into a scientific inquiry without abandoning the obvious bias for or against, some overarching conclusion which cannot help but corrupting the science. Science already has it hard enough to identify and filter bias, as as you noted it's not perfect. Your 'solution' here is to make it worse even!

what can random processes really accomplish? This is precisely the question, it is a scientific and mathematical question.

No, random processes are an observation that can be repeated and modeled. It's not scientific to then start investigating if sacrificing a goat would change the random process or not without a clear indication (theory) that it might. It has no direct need to ultimately explain the power of randomness. But one day it might want to do that. It limits itself - that is how science succeeds by not complicating it.

And modern 'science' is right now punishing as best they can those who are really scrutinizing evolutionary theory. The scrutinizers are those promoting intelligent design.

There's also a possibility that the defenders are under the impression science is being corrupted at the core by those well-meaning people. No one ever said good (not perfect) science will just be a given, that it doesn't have to be carefully watched over.

How would a biological cell look like when it would be designed by engineers? You sound like you just report what you feel and nothing more.

I thought you said you were informed? Feelings? What has this to do with feelings? If I did not read on the topic, what would I know about the cell? If I did not know about it, I would find Darwinian evolution plausible. Engineering and design terminology are used constantly and consistently throughout the entire field, by all the bona fide mainstream highly acclaimed Darwinists - because that is what it looks like and those are the descriptive words that come to mind.

You didn't really answer because there's no answer: nobody knows how a cell would look like if it was designed by a vast intelligence , nor does anyone know how it would look like if it was a result of random processes. So these kind of statements you or any scientist might have made are poetic at most. There's absolutely no logic to them.

It's successful in making exact predictions and seeing the evidence turn up. Which faith is like that?

My view is that they have not been very successful.

Then at least tell me about one other faith that 'hasn't been very successful', meaning it had at least some successes in this department.

I think the idea that it's "mindless" or "purposeless" is a human reaction, a personal evaluation. It's not like that for people like Dawkins. Science doesn't conclude some 'mindlessness' or 'purposeless'. It's not in its vocabulary.

You are quite wrong. That is exactly how it is for Dawkins.

Ah, you mean some cosmic purpose or reason to it all. But you assume that's the only type of purpose or mindfulness that can drive or inspire people, which it clearly isn't. So again we're back to personal evaluations, not the scientific conclusions themselves.

There doesn't have to be a better theory if by theory you mean you want answers. If you insist on answers when there are none, you get stories, which is how the majority of mankind copes, and has always coped, with the true fact of our existence:

We do not know what we are, how we are, where we are. It is a profound and disconcerting state of ignorance. But it's the truth. For now.

And there is absolutely no reason to suppose that because someone is a skeptic or atheist that they no longer use the same tricks to cope. It's just different stories.

I don't disagree here. But this wasn't our discussion either!

Science is about understanding reality and reality is God.

It seems to me you want to redefine science to mean metaphysics or even cosmology perhaps. Ideally it should include these but practically it doesn't work that way. Philosophy is the mother of science and there's room there.

[Kelly Jones]

Mikiel,

Glad to see the new attention you are giving to your posts. They're easier to read, with clearer definitions. It also looks as if you're being a bit less emotive. Appreciate your making the effort.

I was looking forward to some time away from the computer; if you could wrap up the discussion that'd be great.

Wolff's use of the word prior has nothing to do with a priori reasoning, Mikiel. As Wolff describes it, what is 'prior' is actually prior to a priori reasoning, although realisation of it necessarily comes afterwards:

Thus, Consciousness is primary, i.e., it is first, prior to everything. Not before or first in the sense of time or temporal sequence, but prior in the sense of not being secondary to or derivative from anything else.

In full context above, conscuiousness is the a-priori Intelligece and Creator of all "things" which then become "objects of consciousness."

A priori in philosophy refers to deductive reasoning. It means not requiring empirical evidence in order to establish an identity as true. It means, 'from the previous', referring to previous lines of reasoning in the mind and completely independent of observation. A posteriori means, 'from the following, or the one behind', referring to the way empirical proof cannot be found in the premise or hypothesis, but only in the observations made afterwards.

I understand the difference between a-priori *knowing* and a-posteriori *knowing.* This is the broader, epistemological use of the terms, as also used by Merrell-Wolf, not the more restricted sense of the subset a-priori and a-posteriori *reasoning* (which clearly defines the limits of your universe of discourse.)

Here is a quicki from Wiki:

* A priori knowledge is knowledge that is known independently of experience (that is, it is non-empirical).

* A posteriori knowledge is knowledge that is known by experience (that is, it is empirical).

If you compare my definition of the terms with those you extracted from Wikipedia, you will find them to be identical.

The One, nonderivative Reality, is THAT which I have symbolized by 'Consciousness-without-an-object.' This is Root Consciousness, per se, to be distinguished from consciousness as content or as state, on the one hand, and from consciousness as an attribute of a Self or Atman, in any sense whatsoever. It is Consciousness of which nothing can be predicated in the privative sense save abstract Being. Upon It all else depends, while It remains self-existent.

The only problem I have is your own misunderstanding of what Wolff (probably) intended by the word 'Consciousness'. As it appears to me, he meant it in the same way Huang Po used the word 'Mind'. But you personify it, giving it attributes like intelligence, intentionality, the ability to make plans, and so forth. That is wrong.

The only reason I am correcting this mistake is because it is a mistake, and because I don't like to see people fall prey to mistakes.

It is a mistake because that which is everything has no predicates. It isn't intelligent, or not-intelligent. It isn't big or small. It isn't wonderful or mundane. It isn't timeless, or temporary.

I really have lost patience with your insixstence that its *all* about reasoning.

Reasoning is essential to come to philosophical knowledge. Otherwise, it is religious belief. Reasoning is not everything, quite obviously, since there is such a thing as ignorance. But rationality is the only path to Enlightenment.

PS... BTW You got this part right:
"As Wolff describes it, what is 'prior' is actually prior to a priori reasoning..."

Yes, because the Totality is present regardless of whether rationality is. The Totality is prior in the same sense that Wolff means prior, namely, fundamental and primary. Nevertheless, enlightenment cannot arise without reasoning having occurred.

your ref in the other thread to "A=A" is precisely the knowing a-priori, by direct realization of oneness in Universal Identity that "I Am" is the same "I" in a spiritually awakened person as the universal Identity, the traditional "name of God."
Same "I" as in the middle of my Spirit-name mik I el.

I'd describe realisation more as the conclusion to a rational line of thinking. The conclusion is simply that whatever one is, is necessarily some part of the Totality. Then, if one has a mind to, one can let that rational conclusion seep into the other compartments of one's mind, breaking down the barriers and enlightening one's entire being.

It's a fully rational process; rationality of course, being another part of the Totality, and necessarily having the compartment-free nature of the Totality.

So, when you say "I" you mean "me, myself." When I say "I" i mean "I... God Consciousness manifesting as this individual *and* simultaneously transcending all manifestation, all experience of phenomena-as-content of consciousness.

I can mean both, since anything in my experience, whether the appearance of the smaller self "Kelly Jones", or the appearance of my larger self "everything else", is always going to be some part of the Totality.


KJ

[Kelly Jones]

KJ: You wish to prove that I have a belief system. To do so, one would have to prove my reasoning to be false in regards to the nature of Totality. In so doing, one would have to prove why a quest to understand the cause for the Totality is not meaningless.

There are many belief systems about a lot of things, not just about the nature of reality itself. You may have a belief in the system of modern medicine, and its paradigms, for example. You seem to have a belief system about values, philosophy and gender.

I grant you that I construct beliefs as philosophical tools in order to point people to the nature of the Totality.

But if one uses those tools wisely, and constructs a system or vehicle that provides philosophical understanding, then the tools can be laid down. The system or vehicle can also be laid aside, having done its work.

That is the sense in which I meant I have no belief system.

If you say that a cause cannot be found or understood about the self-caused nature of the totality, that might be right. But I do not think it is meaningless to wish to understand it.

Of course it's not meaningless nor futile to understand how existence works. But it is futile to keep asking a question when you have resolved it. It is also meaningless to ask a nonsensical question.

You seem to be asking how existence manages to keep itself going. How did it 'get here' or be like it is. The question basically boils down to, "what causes causation". Do you see why that is a nonsensical question?

It tries to separate causation into two parts, and says that there is one type of causation, and another type, and that one causes the other. This is nonsensical.

KJ: What don't you understand?

AO: How is it self-caused. By what mechanism? What is existence?

Existence is causes. All causes make up existence. There are no causes for existence apart from its own contents.

Looking at reality: we can tell that there are contrasts, so there appear to be things. We ask, how did those particular things come into existence? We answer: they were caused by other things.

When we look at the entirety of all things, the Totality itself, then the idea of existence is not contrasted by anything else. There is only one Totality; there is nothing 'out there beyond' to contrast it with. So causation is not in play for the Totality. It is only when we perceive distinct divisible entities, that causation is in play.

Thus, the Totality itself does not have causation.

These mental steps you need to take for yourself quite a few times, over and over in your own mind. There are some conclusions yet to be drawn.

[mikiel]

I fucked up on the limit of three "embedded quotes" again, so i will chop off a few quote brackets and let the reader figure out who said what.


Glad to see the new attention you are giving to your posts. They're easier to read, with clearer definitions. It also looks as if you're being a bit less emotive. Appreciate your making the effort.

As I said to Alex recently (non-sexist in my replies)...
Fuck you very much for your condescending compliments. My emotions are absent here (but for the fun of the game... call it "the joy of communmication") contrary to your erroneous assumptions. Equanimity is not an emotion and my posts are all from this state of equilibrium, which is foreign to you. You obviously project your emotions onto me.
That said... to the substance...

I was looking forward to some time away from the computer; if you could wrap up the discussion that'd be great.

Wolff's use of the word prior has nothing to do with a priori reasoning, Mikiel. As Wolff describes it, what is 'prior' is actually prior to a priori reasoning, although realisation of it necessarily comes afterwards:

Thus, Consciousness is primary, i.e., it is first, prior to everything. Not before or first in the sense of time or temporal sequence, but prior in the sense of not being secondary to or derivative from anything else.

In full context above, conscuiousness is the a-priori Intelligece and Creator of all "things" which then become "objects of consciousness."

A priori in philosophy refers to deductive reasoning. It means not requiring empirical evidence in order to establish an identity as true. It means, 'from the previous', referring to previous lines of reasoning in the mind and completely independent of observation. A posteriori means, 'from the following, or the one behind', referring to the way empirical proof cannot be found in the premise or hypothesis, but only in the observations made afterwards.

I already spoke to this point, which you here ignore. Reasoning is a very small part of knowing. Very useful but very small. You totally miss the point of a-priori knowing, which is the essence of understand the difference between a-priori *knowing* and a-posteriori *knowing.* This is the broader, epistemological use of the terms, as also used by Merrell-Wolf, not the more restricted sense of the subset a-priori and a-posteriori *reasoning* (which clearly defines the limits of your universe of discourse.)

Here is a quicki from Wiki:

* A priori knowledge is knowledge that is known independently of experience (that is, it is non-empirical).

* A posteriori knowledge is knowledge that is known by experience (that is, it is empirical).

If you compare my definition of the terms with those you extracted from Wikipedia, you will find them to be identical.
We are gonng in circles here. I was showing you how reasoning is not the whole picture in the realm of Knowing... yet you repeat your assertions based on thinking there is nothing (a-priori or a-posteriori beyonde reasoning... nas you think they only refer to categories of reasoning.

The One, nonderivative Reality, is THAT which I have symbolized by 'Consciousness-without-an-object.' This is Root Consciousness, per se, to be distinguished from consciousness as content or as state, on the one hand, and from consciousness as an attribute of a Self or Atman, in any sense whatsoever. It is Consciousness of which nothing can be predicated in the privative sense save abstract Being. Upon It all else depends, while It remains self-existent.

The only problem I have is your own misunderstanding of what Wolff (probably) intended by the word 'Consciousness'. As it appears to me, he meant it in the same way Huang Po used the word 'Mind'. But you personify it, giving it attributes like intelligence, intentionality, the ability to make plans, and so forth. That is wrong.

[b You absently posit "What Wolff PROBABLY meant by "Consciousness?"
I KNOW after several years of study of *all* Wolff's works what he means by "Consciousness", and i have tried to share some of the essential elements of what consciousness *transcending content* (including all reasoning) might be... and in the experience of all enlightened mystics *IS.* But you insist on limiting "knowledge" to what the mind can know through the strict discipline of logic and reasoning.

You didn't even reply to my challenge that you read Wolff's biographical scetch (in the second link you provided) beyond his study of Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" into contemplation of the meaning of Shankara's work (Advaita Vedanta) ... the mystic experience of selflessness. Rather you pound away on reason and logic... the only world you know... not willing to give a thought to what reality might lie beyond... as *Consciousness ItSelf... transcending its content." (I know... if you can't mget it, egocentric as you are... well... you are actually unable. No blame.

I'm tired. Going to bed. Not finishing my reply to your tedius (as always) post.

Maybe I'll hve more energy for this : gruelingly tedius debate tomorrow. (Maybe not.)

The only reason I am correcting this mistake is because it is a mistake, and because I don't like to see people fall prey to mistakes.
"LOL." Your "mistake" is in limiting your reality to reason alone. Any debate referee here will grant this point. Of course ther are none... all... almost all "subjects" and believers of the totally bogus "QRS Philosophy."
Later... if ever.
m

[Kelly Jones]

I fucked up on the limit of three "embedded quotes" again, so i will chop off a few quote brackets and let the reader figure out who said what.

Thank you, Mikiel, for taking the effort of piecing together a courteous and intelligent response. I declare the discussion finished.

I suppose the most interesting part of it was how potentially insightful ideas can be so dramatically warped by psychological hindrances to rationality.

It would seem that the more polite and courteous one is to a fragile psychology, the more that psychology becomes agitated, and requires you to at least hate them, to give them a feeling of personal connection, and substance to their being. The more you provide them with reason, the more they cling to faith.

[Iolaus]

Well, Kelly, I don't really disagree with anything you say, although my mind is often puzzled about the mystery of existence.

Edit:
This was really a fine post and you have changed tremendously since you began here.

[Iolaus]

Diebert,

The mainstream does not teach that there's no purpose in life or that there's no God.

I never said or implied such a thing! Are you daft? I said the evolution theory teaches that there is no purpose nor goal in evolution of life forms.

"Non-materialist possibilities" are not possibilities in any scientific sense. Science is interested in the universe of possibilities which is only material the moment we want to know something about it. This knowledge is quantification - making it matter. If you really think about this then the word 'non-materialist' shows you the problem: it's fundamentally meaningless.

In this I agree with you. I use the term nonmaterialist because so many people think the spiritual realms are nonmaterial, but I doubt that is the case. So what I mean to say is that many scientists just don't want reality to turn out to be much different than they already think it is, and they don't want it to include subtle realms that have been called spiritual - a confusion that arises in mankind because of its invisibility.

What makes you think I don't know how it's used in America? That's where I learned about the word in the first place! You are narrowing it down to just one discipline, the one you have perhaps most experience with following the debates.

It wasn't clear. In this discussion, since it started over my remarks on evolution theory, that is the discipline it should refer to.

Intelligent design people might follow parts of the scientific method but are breaking and subverting it at the same time. The biggest flaw is visible in the name "intelligent design" which is already a rather specific conclusion in itself.

But the whole inquiry is that things are intelligently designed, and that this can be detected. How in the hell does this subvert the scientific method? It is you who keeps trying to suppress inquiry! Meanwhile, you can read in many places in the evolution texts, that life is a random process without goal or purpose. Now, what about that conclusion?

How could any scientist work under such banner? It would be like an institute called "Smoking Causes Cancer Lab" offering evidence on the dangers of smoking in the 70's.

Well, gee, then they should just GIVE UP and not try to increase knowledge or understanding! You are really desperate. Unbelievable. Who is stopping science, huh?

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

It 'holds' an a-priori belief, it admits a bias and then calls that a scientific disagreement? No, it's a disagreement what "scientific" means foremost. And there all compatibility and acceptance will stop.

1. The theory of evolution, as promoted by its mainstays, also holds a priori beliefs.
2. Scientific theories sometimes come under disagreement, which is what this is.
3. There is nothing wrong with the statement - which is based upon not an a priori belief but decades of increasing data which make some scientists doubt if they have been on the right track.
4. What patterns do they study? Well, the ones that stand out the strongest, for starters.

This is just plain nuts, Diebert. There is no difference between this disagreement and any other scientific disagreement. Are you saying the theory of evolution must never be disagreed with? Because I think that's what you're saying. Doesn't that make it a faith?

And where do you get your stats that 99% of new ideas are bunk?

Oh but you can and you should try it! The weather patterns look like a giant factory, combined with all the ocean currents it forms a giant advanced climate control system.

But the entire world weather system could not be compared in complexity to a single living cell. And while some physical systems seem to be self sustaining, what about asking how the whole thing has come about? As I mentioned, in Nature's Destiny, Denton makes a good case showing that the entire universe and its elements are not random, but look like a system intelligently set up to allow a planet like earth to bring forth life.

It's a reason to be strict when applying the scientific method. It's no reason to give up personal beliefs or convictions about intelligent design and stuff. The only thing I'm rejecting here is this strange desire to promote a conviction or belief into a scientific inquiry without abandoning the obvious bias for or against, some overarching conclusion which cannot help but corrupting the science. Science already has it hard enough to identify and filter bias, as as you noted it's not perfect. Your 'solution' here is to make it worse even!

By no stretch is anyone subverting the method, and nearly any theory starts with a hunch or pre-conclusion.

No, random processes are an observation that can be repeated and modeled. It's not scientific to then start investigating if sacrificing a goat would change the random process or not without a clear indication (theory) that it might. It has no direct need to ultimately explain the power of randomness. But one day it might want to do that. It limits itself - that is how science succeeds by not complicating it.

This paragraph is meaningless.

There's also a possibility that the defenders are under the impression science is being corrupted at the core by those well-meaning people.

This is absurd. How is it different to someone saying that those who doubt the pope is the vicar of Christ on earth are subverting the Christian religion? I don't see a difference. What in the world do you think science is? It is inquiry into nature, reality, how it works. Some have proposed the life forms can just get together and morph one into another, getting better and better. Others have said, wait a minute, that doesn't look plausible to me, and here is why.

That's it. That's it Diebert. How do you with a straight face talk of subverting science at its core?

Aren't you saying that this Victorian era theory cannot, under any circumstances, be wrong? Isn't that religion? Does that remind you of Christianity, which insists upon a scripture written word for word by God and possessing the only way for humanity to achieve salvation, all others being the work of the devil? Can you persuade such a person that they might not be right?

Aren't you saying the that theory of Darwin can not and will not brook any argument? The Intelligent Design proponents use arguments from the fields of mathematics, probability, information theory, logic and reason, and the Darwinists use ad hominem and bluster.

You didn't really answer because there's no answer: nobody knows how a cell would look like if it was designed by a vast intelligence , nor does anyone know how it would look like if it was a result of random processes. So these kind of statements you or any scientist might have made are poetic at most. There's absolutely no logic to them.

How little faith you have in science and in the continued increase in knowledge by mankind. But of course we can figure out how a cell would look if designed or undesigned. That is, we can figure out whether the cells that we have could plausibly have arisen without mind. The idea that this is a nonexplorable and forever mysterious question is just a way of hiding one's head in the sand. It is a desire, but that desire will not be fulfilled.
I guess every religion wants its mysteries.

Then at least tell me about one other faith that 'hasn't been very successful', meaning it had at least some successes in this department.

Well, you've got a point there. Evolution theory is a new kind of faith, one that attempts to explain the world without recourse to anything but matter of the sort we can already see and measure. So evolution theory is a kind of nature worship and does engage in science - but if its basic premise is wrong, it will make many mistakes which it has, and miss predictions, which it has, and be surprised at what turns up, which it has. On the other hand, some faiths, such as Hinduism, do contain scientific knowledge, but I think that is because it is the residue of an ancient and scientific culture, but also a spiritual culture. It's a legacy.

Ah, you mean some cosmic purpose or reason to it all. But you assume that's the only type of purpose or mindfulness that can drive or inspire people, which it clearly isn't. So again we're back to personal evaluations, not the scientific conclusions themselves.

No, I didn't really mean a cosmic purpose. I meant life forms arise accidentally without intention, or a goal. Like a goal to make life forms.

I don't disagree here. But this wasn't our discussion either!

Well, it was because many have said that we can't dispense with evolutionary theory until we have a better one. Whereas, that is nonsense. We might conclude that the moon is definitely not made of green cheese, and yet not know what it is made of. So intelligent design leaves a lot of questions unanswered, and boo hoo if someone is uncomfortable not having a neatly wrapped theory of what the heck did happen. That we don't know. But it's time to extricate ourselves from blind alleys.

It seems to me you want to redefine science to mean metaphysics or even cosmology perhaps. Ideally it should include these but practically it doesn't work that way. Philosophy is the mother of science and there's room there.

No, I just think that God is all of reality. Everyone worships. Dawkins no less than anyone else. There isn't anything else. Just reality. Just God. Dawkins is a fervently religious man. Science might study, for example, whether consciousness survives bodily death, and you might call that metaphysics, but I just call it reality.

[mikiel]

Kelly Jones..............:

Thank you, Mikiel, for taking the effort of piecing together a courteous and intelligent response. I declare the discussion finished.

Again, fuck you very much. You can declare whatever you like. I have a few concluding remarks.
KJ:

I suppose the most interesting part of it was how potentially insightful ideas can be so dramatically warped by psychological hindrances to rationality.

Since you don't even get the point that consciousness transcends rationality... much less that non-dual consciousness is Oneness with Consciousness ItSelf... and given your pompous pop psychology which is totally your own projection... your above is a very clear statement of your personal perspective here, misgiided as it is.
KJ:

It would seem that the more polite and courteous one is to a fragile psychology, the more that psychology becomes agitated, and requires you to at least hate them, to give them a feeling of personal connection, and substance to their being. The more you provide them with reason, the more they cling to faith.

You got exactly none of Merrell-Wolff's meaning in his context of "consciousness without an object"... Yes, as it transcends even the false god of reason... (more concepts... objects of consciousness!) Nothing against clear thinking, mind you... (A debate champion and judge *must* be a clear thinker, and I am.)
Rather you go back to lame personal attacks on me, following of course the examples set by your gurus here.

I have honestly told you several times that you mistake my radical honesty and passionate intensity for the anger which afflicts such egocentric minds as yours... likewise agitation. I confront your ignorance and condescention... sometimes biker style... using bad-ass languange even (how rude!) and you get your panties in a knot over it. Tough shit. Who is really fragile here? (It is an adjective never used by those who know me to describe me.)

As to clinging to faith... read my my page, "Beyond Belief: Gnosis."

http://www.consciousunity.org/Beyond%20Belief.HTML

That'll do it for me too.
Good luck getting over you delusion that reason alone will get you to enlightenment. It will not. This is an absolute certainty which I know in the sense of gnosis, as above, and which * all * truly enlightened ones know. I have quoted them from all six major Traditions...
transcending the mere doctines of their traditions... and it was all lost on you, if you happened to read the link shared.

Here it is again just on the remote possibility that that you are interested in quotes from actual enlightened ones:

http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/traditions.html

Good grief! and good night.

[mikiel]

If I were to leave this forum with one link to the ultimate wisdom of enlightenment, I would just bump the link last shared in my post above. (Oh... I'd include links to all of Franklin Merrell-Wolff's work too... some shared here recently. (Ask if interested.)
Just to highlight it again (wisdom from enlightened mystics from the six major Traditions) :
http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/traditions.html