What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by David Quinn »

Humans love to create so many unnecessary dilemmas for themselves!

Laird, you wouldn't have a single problem with the existence of "evil" if you gave up your need to believe in a conscious, loving God. It is that depraved egotistical need which is creating these dilemmas for you. (Not that I believe for a second that you are actually serious about resolving them - they are far too precious to be cast away just like that.)

It's obvious that your interest in evil is not really about understanding evil, but about maintaining the God-fiction and preserving your medieval viewpoint on things. That is why you want the "problem" of evil to remain unanswerable. It helps you to avoid answering to your own greed for the God-fiction.

Laird wrote:The peculiar thing, for me, is that the old systems still often seem to "function", by which I mean "represent reality truthfully". This puzzles me, to the point that I've even written on another forum that it feels as though reality "wants" all belief systems to be simultaneously true.
No, get it right. It is you that wants all beliefs systems to be simultaneously true - which is to say, you want to do away with the concept of truth all together. Stopping passing the buck. This has nothing to do with reality, but everything to do with your own greedy desires.

Laird wrote:For example, I've seen that the Australian Aborigines are right: that there are spirits in the land.
Is there?

-
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by guest_of_logic »

'Laird, you wouldn't have a single problem with the existence of "evil" if you gave up your need to believe in a conscious, loving God.' --David Quinn

Not really, David, but to some extent you're right, and if you had extended the list to "conscious, loving and omnipotent" God, then you would have had an even stronger point - with that extra divine attribute, the problem is, as far as I can tell, effectively insurmountable. I've not seen a compelling theodicy given those divine characteristics. For that reason, as you are probably aware, I don't ascribe that characteristic to God.

Actually, though, my belief in God came after my experiences with the demonic. Before those, and even some time after them, I was agnostic. When, though, I contemplated the implications of my experiences with negative spiritual forces that actively sought my harm (discovering that other people, e.g. DonaldJ, have had similar experiences), then it seemed only natural to posit that there were forces opposed to them, positive forces that prevented me (and others) from spiritual harm. Combining that with the fact that the human race has a long history of people experiencing divine forces, and that I've spoken personally to people who've experienced them, it makes sense on the balance of probabilities to accept them and their ultimate source. Your list of pejoratives - "depraved", "egotistical", "medieval", "greed(y)", "fiction" - in respect to this honest and considered decision is a poor reflection on your level of awareness of reality and of psychology.

Nevertheless, I remain ignorant of many things, such as why it is that not everyone seems to have overt experiences with these forces, and why even people who do experience them generally don't experience them constantly. Why, too, is it that God, if indeed He is conscious, does not communicate with us directly? What is this realm of reality we are in that He does not make His presence explicitly and personally known to us, so that there could be no room for doubt, the fodder for a breeding atheism? These aren't easy questions.

Turning to the meat of your claim, that, absent God, I would have no problem of evil: given my unorthodox view of God (i.e. excluding omnipotence and uncertain of the extent of His creative function), it wouldn't actually make that much of a difference to me. The main "problem of evil" assumes that God created all that is not Him, and that He is omnipotent, such that He could have created in any way that He liked. Given that "in any way that He liked" includes "perfectly good and free from evil", the problem, then, obviously, is why He did not choose that option.

Since that's not my view of God in the first place, my problem of evil is different, and doesn't change much even if we fail to believe in God as leader, since we are left in any case with two opposing spiritual forces. The problem in that case could be formulated as follows:

Firstly, recognise, given the reality of spirit entities and the likely survival of the human soul after death, that consciousness is a key component of reality, perhaps even that reality cannot exist without it. Next, recognise that consciousness is purposive, even if (especially if) that purpose is simply to seek pleasure. These, combined, lead to the understanding that reality itself (even if only in the sense of the combined consciousnesses in reality being "the consciousness of reality") is purposive, particularly towards the seeking of pleasure. The question then becomes (talking in terms of pleasure and pain rather than good and evil): why, if all consciousness in reality is generally seeking after pleasure, is there so much pain in reality? In a universe of abundance, the living of a moral life in which every consciousness is honoured and experiences pleasure without pain is a pretty simple proposition. So, why isn't it the case?

Here are a few possible answers:

1. Good and evil are intrinsic polarised forces in reality that have always existed. The struggle between good and evil is the basis of the evolution of reality, just as the Cold War was the basis of the evolution of much in the countries involved.

2. The universe is not abundant. The fight for resources breeds selfishness, which breeds (and upon which feeds) evil in its more diabolical, spiritual sense.

3. Even though consciousness is intrinsic to the universe, it has had to evolve through the ages from very, very primitive beginnings, in which not only were the rules for moral life not obvious, but it had no intellectual machinery capable of formulating them, and it trod various evolutionary pathways that resulted in selfishness and evil.

Feel free to add your own.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Dennis Mahar »

The only worthwhile experience you can have,
is to realise with earth shattering clarity.

You are absolutely, metaphysically, unutterably
ALONE.

There is no fudging it.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by cousinbasil »

Dennis Mahar wrote:The only worthwhile experience you can have,
is to realise with earth shattering clarity.

You are absolutely, metaphysically, unutterably
ALONE.

There is no fudging it.
But somehow you keep showing up...
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Dennis Mahar »

How does when and where one shows up alter the fact that one is irrevocably alone?
Try again.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by cousinbasil »

Laird wrote:Here are a few possible answers:
Let's look at them one by one to see why they fail to be "answers."
1. Good and evil are intrinsic polarised forces in reality that have always existed. The struggle between good and evil is the basis of the evolution of reality, just as the Cold War was the basis of the evolution of much in the countries involved.
Good and evil may be polarised, but upon what do you base the contention that they have always existed? Can one not just as easily say God's Plan has always existed? At some much more temporally recent point, the Plan was challenged by exalted spiritual beings. Only at this point does evil enter the picture, since God's Plan has intelligence behind it and purpose, no matter how obscure to the earthly mind. One more time, I paraphrase the Lucifer Manifesto: Do what Thou wilt shall be the Whole of the Law. Lucifer is in fetters, as are Satan and the Devil himself; evil is not intrinsic to anything. Should evil cease to exist, and it must, will good also cease to exist as a logical necessity? Perhaps - but God's Tsunami will still remain. Maybe the absence of recognizable good because evil no longer exists is God's "light burden" since right now it rarely if ever seems so "light." Except to Quinn, to whom I delight in directing barbs - but maybe he is simply far ahead of the curve. Maybe David is simply saying good and evil cannot have always existed, because they don't exist now.
2. The universe is not abundant. The fight for resources breeds selfishness, which breeds (and upon which feeds) evil in its more diabolical, spiritual sense.
The universe is unimaginably abundant. You are speaking of life on earth only, and only from certain viewpoints upon the earth. In your defense, however, I will admit that the abundance often seems to require imagination in order to be perceived.
3. Even though consciousness is intrinsic to the universe, it has had to evolve through the ages from very, very primitive beginnings, in which not only were the rules for moral life not obvious, but it had no intellectual machinery capable of formulating them, and it trod various evolutionary pathways that resulted in selfishness and evil.
Even if you limit this statement to evolutionary consciousness, you are indicating certain "pathways" and not others, such as altruism, selflessness, good, and the Power of Love.

Just got "updated" to IE9 - had to roll back because ieSpell goes bonkers under IE9....
Last edited by cousinbasil on Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:22 am, edited 3 times in total.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by cousinbasil »

Dennis Mahar wrote:How does when and where one shows up alter the fact that one is irrevocably alone?
Try again.
OK. If I am so fucking alone, what are you doing here?
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Kunga »

cousinbasil wrote:
Dennis Mahar wrote:How does when and where one shows up alter the fact that one is irrevocably alone?
Try again.
OK. If I am so fucking alone, what are you doing here?

LOL !
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Kunga »

BTW David, why do you attack Laird for his faith in God, when you refer to God all the time ? Dosn't A=A=GOD, too ?
I use to be a "born again" Christian, so I can relate 100% with the God concept. When I studied Buddhism, the concept became another concept (One Mind, The Tao, The Void, Emptiness).
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Talking Ass »

Maps. The issue of maps---conceptual diagrams---is important. It is better sometimes to have a bad or incomplete map than to have no map at all. OTOH, it is sometimes quite correct to do altogether without a map and to see what one discovers. Some people, most people in fact (maybe all of us) have very incomplete 'maps' of the reality in which we find ourselves. What I mean is the 'interior novelesque' where our Map of the World is installed. Ask anyone, nowadays, to locate themselves in the world and in the universe and you will hear a rather strange, disjointed tale.

A map is also an 'episteme'. An episteme holds a system for cataloging reality. There was once a time when medieval scholars described a category of 'animals known to live in fire'. This was an attempt to describe 'how things really are'.

In certain ethnographic literature as in Wizard of the Upper Amazon, the White man who goes to live with the natives in the deep South American jungle is forced or perhaps chooses to integrate himself into their episteme. In that jungle world, the supreme entity (different from deity) is the Anaconda, the most powerful entity in that world. Through vision, he learns how to place himself in that world, and he understands, feels and knows, the spirit of the Anaconda. He learns a certain kind of 'map' that enables him to function in that world: hunt successfully, etc.

But the most impressive thing is that, as he is aware of the Anaconda, which he 'feels' coming closer through the jungle, a strange sort of knowing, the arrival of an intelligent entity, the entity is also aware of him. 'You have come into my domain and I will reveal myself to you'.

Predation. In 'actual fact', the ur-religion is shamanism. Shamanic cultures are hunting cultures and shamanic skill has to do with 'tracking' and 'mapping' the habits of the prey. Man is the most successful predator, and predation is a rather cruel game when you think about it. A predator is always at an advantage vis-a-vis the prey. But the existence of predators (known fact) cause non-predators to evolve in intelligence. A prey who is smarter than the local predator...is no longer a prey! I think out ideas about evil have at a core level to do with predation, or stem from predation. In a sense, what is 'evil' is what preys on us. Also, we see our own predation of other species and within our own species and are repelled.

But there is a link between shamanism and magic and science. All seek mastery in an environment. The shaman by entering the internal world and coralling the quarry; the magician by using mental or spiirtual force to cause effects in the world around him (and also to use divination systems whereby skillful choices are made); and science of course by direct, willful, manipulation of 'reality'. I suggest that because there is a link running through all these 'sciences', and because they have essentially to do with survival and predation (our own), that there are many complexes of problems in them.

Immanentism vs Transcendentalism. 'To remain within' and 'to get out' is basically the dichotomy here. In our own traditions we face this rather starkly. In the Gospels, the 'kingdom of god' is describes as being everywhere present and yet unperceived. But also, with Johannine Cristianity, "My kingdom doesn't belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. My kingdom doesn't have its origin on earth." The (radical) doctrines of Jesus began with the first declaration and took a stand against the current metaphysical (priestly) ordering, but with the Johannine forumulation were turned back into just another form of (pagan) transcendentalism.

'Atheism' is, in fact, a way to become an immanentist because it requires a complete denial and reversal of a way that god is described, which is to say a particular edifice or map. The radicalism of Jesus is (if you accept these views) incommensurate with religious structures, metaphysical systems, priestly endeavors, and to the transcendentalist abstraction.

How we exist in this world becomes the most important question. And how we bring our divinity (God or idea about god) into this reality, and how we really live that, is essential.

Hindu Transcendentalism. There is, perhaps, a way to bridge the two opposing views. This from Brihadarankaya Upanishad:
"The human being has two states of consciousness: one in this world, the other in the next. But there is a third state between them, not unlike the world of dreams, in which we are aware of both worlds, with their sorrows and joys. When a person dies, it is only the physical body that dies; that person lives on in a nonphysical body, which carries the impressions of his past life. It is these impressions that determine his next life. In this intermediate state he makes and dissolves impressions by the light of the Self."
Still---and this works either in immanentism or transcendentalism---one can always say:
Lead me from the unreal to the Real;
Lead me from darkness to light;
Lead me from death to immortality.
I would say that this 'third option' is what I am calling our Novelesque. It holds, contains and expresses our essential view of the reality in which we occur. We have a creative relationship, much like the 'magical' relationship I mentioned before: we substantially create that world. In it are all our 'impressions' which will always carry over. How do we 'purify' that interior splace, that 'third option', that place 'not unlike the world of dreams'? What has happened to us that there is so much garbage and horror in our own little personal Novel?

This line: "In this intermediate state he makes and dissolves impressions by the light of the Self', I believe points us---atheist or theist---in the right direction: In some way we go to work 'dissolving impressions' by the light [power, strength, creative power] of the Self. But since we can only 'destroy as creators', we become builders of worlds of possibility. Hopefully beauty.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Kunga »

David Quinn wrote:Laird, you wouldn't have a single problem with the existence of "evil" if you gave up your need to believe in a conscious, loving God. It is that depraved egotistical need which is creating these dilemmas for you. (Not that I believe for a second that you are actually serious about resolving them - they are far too precious to be cast away just like that.)
But why your rejectioning of a personal loving God ? Isn't it just as egotistical to presume you have all the answers ? I say, whatever floats your boat that keeps you sane.
Sometimes it is nessesary to have faith in a personal loving God, it is like having a rope to grab onto when you are sinking in quicksand.

Have your spiritual arteries become so hardened that your heart has shriveled up, and fallen off ?

The truth of the matter is : We don't really know anything for sure, it's all based on faith, speculation, and views. The hard evidence for a loving personal God can only be known experientially....as with Enlightenment.


...

"To open the flow, you must be free of fear, worry, and doubt. Unfounded negative thoughts clog the flow just as gunk clogs a sink.

…your mind must not only hold true and pure thoughts — God’s thoughts only — about the material life of yourself and others, and about your physical well-being, but you must know that God’s Mind is the Source of all true thoughts and by perfect faith and trust in Him you thus keep yourself open to the free circulation of His Thoughts in your consciousness"

(Tom Montalk/Metaphysics)

http://montalk.net/metaphys
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by guest_of_logic »

Hi there cousinbasil,

I understand your answer a little better now: it is the idea that "[God's] Plan was challenged by exalted spiritual beings" and that "at this point [..] evil enter[ed] the picture".

Dr. Shakuntala Modi outlines a scenario like this in her book, Memories of God and Creation, which documents and consolidates reports from patients hypnotically regressed through past lives back to the very start of creation. It's a fascinating read, as is her earlier book, Remarkable Healings: A Psychiatrist Discovers Unsuspected Roots of Mental and Physical Illness. Whilst I don't necessarily accept it as truth, the scenario she outlines does overcome certain plausibility problems with the usual Lucifer-opposes-God's-plan-and-gets-thrown-out-of-heaven scenario, such as:
  • How plausible is it that an almighty God can't even demonstrate to His own exalted companions the perfection of His plan? He created them, He knows how they think; they know He created them, they know His powers - where's the problem? This is all happening in heaven, a place of if not perfect harmony then certainly close to it: how is it possible for such a fundamental disagreement to occur there?
  • How plausible is it that angelic beings through a mere disagreement turn into utterly evil beings? Is it at all plausible that from a state of perfection (or near to it) one might descend, without God's intervention to prevent it, to utter foulness? In what way does God lack the power to prevent this? Given that even we imperfect humans can see the error of rebelling against God and falling into evil ways, how is it that (near-?)perfect angels could not, especially given God's guidance, see this too?
  • How plausible is it that these once-exalted-now-foul beings may wreak havoc upon Creation with almighty God permitting it, even though He has the power to prevent the suffering they cause?
I recommend checking out the book to see how it does this. Let me know what you think if you do.

I'm also curious about something that you wrote: "Lucifer is in fetters, as are Satan and the Devil himself". How do you distinguish between the three? Also, if they are in chains, then how is it that evil still stalks this planet?

--

TA, very nice post. You always take such a broad perspective. It's impressive. I don't have anything to add right now but just wanted to say thanks.

--

Kunga, that metaphysics page by Tom Montalk is pretty good. It even has a section on "Good and Evil" - perfect for this discussion. Interesting to me is that it mentions evolution there in a similar way as I had suggested earlier in the thread.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Dennis Mahar »

OK. If I am so fucking alone, what are you doing here?
Feeling metaphysical?
You're not alone.

doesn't fudge:

You are absolutely, metaphysically, unutterably alone.
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Talking Ass »

I am going to rather violently bend this comment of Diebert's to fit over here.
Diebert wrote: "Mindfulness does cause a qualitative difference but is this really what is meant in these cases? It appears to me that it's more about a "breaking through" the surface, when all relating and symbols cease to exist and meaning freezes, "all is empty and meaningless", as a passing through, like a baptism by water and fire. Naturally there's a surfacing again otherwise the mind could not function further as relations and symbols are all it got to work with. That is understood. What "they are on to" is perhaps a fundamental initiation which has become basically extinct in this day and age? At any rate I think more madness is needed by the strongest minds and acceptance of the damage done by the weakest. It's like legalizing drugs really."
A rather interesting conceptual reversal (and a commentary on 'the damage done by the weakest'):
  • "Can we reach an eschatological understanding of the resurrected Christ by inverting or reversing the ancient church's apprehension of the movement of resurrection and ascension? All too significantly the ancient church identified the movement of resurrection with the movement of ascension, thereby reaching its faith in Christ as the ascended and exalted Lord, the Christ of glory who is the celestial and monarchic Cosmocrator. From a consistently eschatological point of view, the Christ of glory can be seen to be a consequence of ancient Christianity's transforming the forward and downward movement of the Kingdom into the upward and backward movement of the ascension. But what if a radical faith were to transform the backward and upward movement of the ascension into the downward and forward movement of the Word's becoming flesh? Then faith could affirm that the resurrected Christ is not the Christ of glory---not the exalted and celestial Christ, not the monarchical Cosmocrator, not 'the man of heaven' [Paul], and not the primordial Logos or Word. Quite the contrary: the resurrected Christ remains and is yet more deeply the Christ of passion, the lowly and suffering Christ, the servant and the slave, 'the man of dust', the eschatological or final word."

    ---Thomas J.J. Altizer, The Descent Into Hell
_______________________________________________________

PS: Cousinbasil, there is a very useful definition of 'eschatological' at 2:15 on this track.

Bonus Track since y'all been so good....

For Dennis: It Shoulda Been Me.
fiat mihi
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by David Quinn »

Kunga wrote: BTW David, why do you attack Laird for his faith in God, when you refer to God all the time ? Dosn't A=A=GOD, too ?

One is a fiction, the other is truth.

In other words, there is a world of difference between the rational act of abandoning everything, including all of one's egotistical desires, for the sake of truth, and that of clinging to a fiction in order to appease and placate one's egotistical desires.

Laird's "faith" is depraved because it is directed outwards, away from his egotistical attachments, and thus becomes a form of escapism. It is like the faith of the Islamic jihadists who blame everyone else but themselves for their problems, instead of looking inwardly for solutions. Their minds are locked in: other people become the great Satan who must be destroyed; no attempt is ever made to uncover the irrationality of their own views or to understand their own psychology.

Because of these untouchable areas deep inside their minds, their worldview has to twisted and warped to fit in with them. In Laird's case, the egotistical need for a personal God causes him to form a simplistic medieval view of the world (e.g. good. vs evil), one that excites strong emotions - thus enabling him to feel both important in an emotional sense and distracted from pursuing avenues to truth.

This is why he finds all talk about the path to truth "unsatisfying". It doesn't feed his strong emotional desires.


I use to be a "born again" Christian, so I can relate 100% with the God concept. When I studied Buddhism, the concept became another concept (One Mind, The Tao, The Void, Emptiness).
Yes, the Christian viewpoint becomes infinitely insignificant in the light of the greater reality of the Tao. Part of the depravity of the Christian mindset is that of arbitrarily selecting a small fraction of reality and magnifying it so that it overwhelms everything else.

Kunga wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Laird, you wouldn't have a single problem with the existence of "evil" if you gave up your need to believe in a conscious, loving God. It is that depraved egotistical need which is creating these dilemmas for you. (Not that I believe for a second that you are actually serious about resolving them - they are far too precious to be cast away just like that.)
But why your rejectioning of a personal loving God ? Isn't it just as egotistical to presume you have all the answers ? I say, whatever floats your boat that keeps you sane.
Sometimes it is nessesary to have faith in a personal loving God, it is like having a rope to grab onto when you are sinking in quicksand.

This merely reduces spirituality to a kind of therapy for mental illnesses, thus doing away with the real meaning of spirituality altogether. If anything is an expression of evil it is this.

Have your spiritual arteries become so hardened that your heart has shriveled up, and fallen off ?
I sure hope so!

Look, if being heartless means keeping the path to truth alive and visible, and not allowing it to be swamped by other people with their impure agendas, then I'm quite happy to known as heartless.

You cannot serve two masters. If you're going to get involved in spirituality, then you have to make a choice: Are you going to serve the truth, or are you going to kowtow to people's weaknesses? Helping people with therapy seems like a good thing to do on the surface, but if in doing this the real spiritual path is pushed aside and obliterated, then it becomes a problem.

The truth of the matter is : We don't really know anything for sure, it's all based on faith, speculation, and views.

Nonsense.

The hard evidence for a loving personal God can only be known experientially....as with Enlightenment.
Even that doesn't constitute hard evidence, as experiences can be deceptive.

I remember the idiot Bertrand Russell once saying that he would only believe in God if He came down to earth and announced Himself, somehow forgetting to realize that such an event wouldn't constitute any kind of proof at all. What an idiot.

Experiences don't really mean anything in the end. It is only the ego that values experiences. If your experiences of enlightenment don't involve a complete understanding of the nature of reality - a limitless understanding that is beyond all doubt - then what you are experiencing isn't enlightenment.

-
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Dennis Mahar »

For Dennis: It Shoulda Been Me.
The cool 'ignore function' got ignored?
Welcome back laddie.
It's empty and meaningless.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Kunga »

David Quinn wrote:reduces spirituality to a kind of therapy for mental illnesses,
Yes, spiritual therapy for the mental illness aquired from a society that lacks true spirituality. A Bodhisattva will appear as a compassionate caregiver, to those that are in need. Not everyone has the same "prescription", to heal psychologial/physical wounds. Buddha did not give all the same teachings, he taught the masses, and he taught individuals differently. Maybe Laird is not ready for a Godless spiritual journey....that dosn't mean he's on the wrong path, we all have our own personal spiritual journey.

Surely your heart still has compassion for others. I know you do, I feel it.



David Quinn wrote:Experiences don't really mean anything in the end. It is only the ego that values experiences. If your experiences of enlightenment don't involve a complete understanding of the nature of reality - a limitless understanding that is beyond all doubt - then what you are experiencing isn't enlightenment.
But you just said, "Experiences ...is only the ego", so how could that "experince of complete understanding beyond all doubt", be the "experiencing" of enlightenment ?
lol
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

guest_of_logic wrote: OK, so that's two votes against the notion of evil as force for evolution of good. What would you guys suggest, then, is the answer to the question of why and how evil exists and is permitted to exist?
Evil isn't so much permitted to exist. Evil exists because it is good at what it does. It provides short term pleasure for those without a conscience, and those who are especially skilled at evil have no consequences. Evil is fought, but good never has won to the point of stomping out all evil, and evil keeps cropping up where certain desires exist. The desires themselves could also be classified as evil, but it is the more solid manifestations that are problematic.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by David Quinn »

Kunga wrote:
David Quinn wrote:reduces spirituality to a kind of therapy for mental illnesses,
Yes, spiritual therapy for the mental illness aquired from a society that lacks true spirituality. A Bodhisattva will appear as a compassionate caregiver, to those that are in need. Not everyone has the same "prescription", to heal psychologial/physical wounds. Buddha did not give all the same teachings, he taught the masses, and he taught individuals differently. Maybe Laird is not ready for a Godless spiritual journey....that dosn't mean he's on the wrong path, we all have our own personal spiritual journey.

Well, that's merely a semantic issue. He may not be on a wrong path, but he isn't on the right path either - assuming by "right path" we mean the path of consciously opening up to the Infinite. Everything about him shouts: "That path is utterly distasteful. I want nothing to do with it!"

Surely your heart still has compassion for others. I know you do, I feel it.
I'm sorry, it's a weakness. I admit I'm not the finished article.

Kunga wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Experiences don't really mean anything in the end. It is only the ego that values experiences. If your experiences of enlightenment don't involve a complete understanding of the nature of reality - a limitless understanding that is beyond all doubt - then what you are experiencing isn't enlightenment.
But you just said, "Experiences ...is only the ego", so how could that "experince of complete understanding beyond all doubt", be the "experiencing" of enlightenment ?
lol
It's both an experience and not an experience. It is the experience you have when you abandon all experiences. As soon as you think you have experienced it, you've lost it.

What distinguishes it from an experience of, say, a personal God is that possesses no form, doesn't require any evidence of its presence, and the ego can find no security in it.

-
Liberty Sea
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Liberty Sea »

http://i.imgur.com/IcoNP.png
guest_of_logic wrote: I would respond, then, that there are certain constraints by definition on the words "good" and "moral" that do not permit a totally relative morality: if the devil calls torture, pestilence, disease, famine, poverty and war "good", then he is redefining the word for his own purposes. That redefinition is not one that those who typically use the English language would accept (at least in the absence of a higher purpose in that torture, pestilence, etc - that is, one such as the suggestion I made that evil exists to force the evolution of good).

In summary, "evil" in the English language means more than just "[morally] wrong" - it includes an understanding of what that entails, and so, if you are to argue that the devil doesn't view himself as "evil", then you are going to need a new word to convey what you mean (perhaps "unjustified"?), because, given the definition of the word in the English language, he has no choice but to view himself as evil.
“War is the father of all and king of all. Some he shows as gods, others as men. Some he makes slaves, and others free…" - Heraclitus
I know perfectly what the world evil means in the English language, and it doesn't negate my point.
You should know that throughout the course of human history the definition of good and evil have continually changed. War in Homer's time was exalted and glorified. Massacre was considered normal to the Viking. Do you think Genghis Khan viewed himself as evil when he answered the question "what is the best in life?" with "The greatest joy in life is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters."
Even in recent time, a hero in time of war is but a murderer in times of peace. Why would the Devil care about society's conventional definition of good and evil, something that is in a constant flux? If I say that there is nothing wrong with the Holocaust, or that the Black Death was good, of course I would be considered evil by today society. It is a person's definition of good and evil that make him good or evil in the eyes of God.
But of course, if you doubt my English comprehension, then let me end this with a quote from a master of English, sir William Shakespeare the Bard of Avon: "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." (Hamlet)
Last edited by Liberty Sea on Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Kunga »

David Quinn wrote:I'm sorry, it's a weakness. I admit I'm not the finished article.
My teachings are easy to understand
and easy to put into practice

Yet your intellect will never grasp them,
and if you try to practice them, you'll fail

My teachings are older than the world
How can you grasp their meaning ?

If you want to know me,
look inside your heart.



[From your brother, Lao-tzu]
Liberty Sea
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Liberty Sea »

http://i.imgur.com/4Znbq.jpg

David is still too soft. He is not playful enough with his heartlessness.

"Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs; the sage is ruthless, and treats the people as straw dogs."
-From my brother Lao Tzu.
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Talking Ass »

Funny that you bring up Hamlet, Mr Liberty Sea. I was just reading a somewhat dated Freudian analysis of Hamlet's 'issues' by Ernest Jones. The basis of his analysis is that Hamlet's deep, insurmountable conflict was of an Oedipal nature which points I think to an area not discussed so far: the unconscious desire to destroy father so to have mother all to yourself. But going further: in all children are levels of desire, jealousy, envy and selfishness that are largely pre-conscious, perhaps somatic is the word, or instinctive. It is all there in miniature long before it comes to fruition in those barbarous activities we label as 'evil'. How terrible it is to find old Satan so active even before we get our little game off the ground...

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

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by David Quinn »

Kunga wrote:
David Quinn wrote:I'm sorry, it's a weakness. I admit I'm not the finished article.
My teachings are easy to understand
and easy to put into practice

Yet your intellect will never grasp them,
and if you try to practice them, you'll fail

My teachings are older than the world
How can you grasp their meaning ?

If you want to know me,
look inside your heart.



[From your brother, Lao-tzu]
Here is a different translation of that passage:

My words are easy to understand, and easy to perform,
Yet no man under heaven knows them or practices them.

My words have ancient beginnings.
My actions are disciplined.
Because men do not understand, they have no knowledge of me.

Those that know me are few;
Those that abuse me are honoured.
Therefore the sage wears rough clothing and holds the
jewel in his heart.


-
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Jamesh »

[Evil is evil especially when it is chosen, inflicted, justified. Hitler consciously chose to murder millions]
What if our repulsion of what Hitler did ended up preventing further major wars? One could also take the nuke bombing of Japan as evil, seeing as it appears not to have been necessary - but what if without that horror, some other nation was lead into nuclear war?
[ I think our ideas about evil have at a core level to do with predation, or stem from predation. In a sense, what is 'evil' is what preys on us. Also, we see our own predation of other species and within our own species and are repelled]
This seems a lot closer to the truth - but generalise it even further. Instead of just predators, extend it to whatever we cannot control that could pose a danger.

For instance, most folks, in the absence of truth, are xenophobic, that is if they do not know enough about another culture that is now interacting with one’s own, will regard it as “wrong” and a desire will arise to stamp it out, to remove it as a source of “evil”. Masculine men like feminine women, why? because they appear not capable of being harmful to the male, they are malleable and obedient to some extent. Feminine women tend to like children, why? Because these females know the children are weaker, not predators, these children can be controlled. So these controllable, generally non-dangerous, non-predatory externalities are regarded by those stronger as being good. To the feminine woman a strong or wealthy man is regarded as capable of protection, as a barrier to other predators, and so also are regarded as good overall, though the male may have some “evil traits”. The same for parents or older siblings of kids, providing those persons do provide the desired protection.

So in the end good and evil are entirely whatever a particular ego has learnt is controllable (good) and non-controllable and potentially dangerous or negative (evil). While knowledge can remove many things one once considered evil, only ultimate truths can remove all evil and good from one’s ego programs. To go beyond good and evil is to go beyond a self centred ego. The ego is often wrong, particularly when it is engrossed in the short term or narrow minded thinking, rather than a long term, holistic view - something like sugar or alcohol, as seen by the feelings ego as "good", might become quite evil over a longer term, as seen by later personal regrets when that part of the ego that is more rational gains the upper hand.

Alex still sees the QRS as evil, because his ego is still self-centred and he sees them as not-controllable or dangerous and his ego wants to be seen as good by offering up resistances. I also still have some of that affect happening in me at times.
"These two classes of men are always upon earth, & they should be enemies; whoever tries to reconcile them seeks to destroy existence.
I see the above two classes of people as being those who are primarily libertarians/individualists/republicans and those whom are collectivists/democrats. To me the former tend to be predators who obtain protection via developing individual skills, while the latter are more sheeplike who look to find protection in the herd. Both are a little evil as both try and control me, however the libertarians feel more strongly evil as they are the most vocal and as predators tend to own the most resources – therefore they are the most dangerous or offensive to my own selfishness. The libertarians are also the most untruthful and bigoted, they tend to be collectivists when it comes to what is their own bigger fish – God and Religion and their non-abstract counterparts - Law and Order. Libertarians just want the freedom to be predators, to be evil.
It is the constant battle between the individual and the herd, and like most things a bell curved middle way is generally the best.
Locked