Concerning David Quinn's "Ultimate Reality"

[Cold Cave]

Greetings all.

I read David Quinn's essay on Women over a year ago, and was over-joyed to hear someone (DQ) explain so simply what had been muddled in my head for years. His wisdom acted as a sledge-hammer upon some deep foundational truths I had based my life upon, yet my joy quickly turned to despair. Such can be the price for the re-valuation of values. I've read and re-read this essay several times over the year and feel as though I've digested it in the sense where my mind is at peace with it.

At the same time over a year ago I also read his book "Wisdom of the Infinte." However, since I was already in deep reflection upon Women, my mind could not handle any more weight to carry. With women under my thumb now, I've gone back to WOTI, and have been struggling with a few issues. I'm sorry if these already have been answered in the forum, but I did briefly search and could not find anything, so here it goes.

- DQ says "Take the concept of God, for example. Religious people often use the concept of "God" to explain the existence of the Universe. They say that God is the creator or sustainer of all reality. But even if, for the sake of argument, we assume this to be true, it still does not get to the very core of the matter. For it overlooks the fact that the relationship between this God and the Universe would necessarily be causal in nature. After all, if the principle of cause and effect did not exist to begin with, then not even Almighty God himself could be the cause of the Universe. He would be utterly powerless and not much of a God, to say the least! This alone demonstrates that the principle of cause and effect is more fundamental than God. "

1) Doesn't the very definition of God (the summation of all things, pure, holy, infinite, omnipresent, omniscient) dictate that cause and effect must simply be tools/methods of God's nature? Doesn't the very definition of God mean creator of everything? Including cause and effect? Why can't God be an uncaused cause? Or what if God is cause and effect? or that cause and effect is simply a characteristic of God's nature?

- DQ stresses the importance to understanding Ultimate Reality rests on being able to think about the universe as non-dualistic. (ie; there is no metaphysical realm)

2) Since a spiritual realm by nature may be impossible to prove/disprove, doesn't a belief in a non-dualistic universe require faith?


So far these are the only questions I can think of. I look forward to getting some insight.
Thanks!!!!

[Dennis Mahar]

cold cave is a terrible pun.

until you come to realise and experience the full impact of 'stuck' in Categorical Thinking.
That Categorical Thinking generates prejudice and discrimination.
That Categorical Thinking is impossible to live without on the one hand and seen in its true light as 'untold suffering'.
Think about thinking.

Come to Contextual Thinking.

[Cold Cave]

Terrible pun?? Cold cave is just the name of a band I like. Jesus, I hope I'm allowed to enjoy music here without getting slammed.
Anyone care to address my questions?
You'll have to forgive me, I'm clearly not the most intelligent guy here so plain English would be most helpful for me.

thanks

[Dennis Mahar]

Forgive me lad.
I don't know Cold Cave as music.

you were referring to women as 'under your thumb'
The metaphor 'Cold Cave' has been bandied about as a Vagina reference.

Caught in the Cold Cave of a heartless bitch.

Maybe there's preference for carrying ice cubes up the ass :)

Let's get very clear about a phenomenon:
Categorical Thinking in it's 'owness', in it's being-towards,
Splits self/other,
This is an error in Thinking.

Capiche?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hi Cold cave. Unless you're interested in hypnotransendental conversations, you can safely ignore Dennis the Menace over here. But I can give you some answers based on my own understandings of the topic. Or following the logic really.

1) Doesn't the very definition of God (the summation of all things, pure, holy, infinite, omnipresent, omniscient) dictate that cause and effect must simply be tools/methods of God's nature? Doesn't the very definition of God mean creator of everything? Including cause and effect? Why can't God be an uncaused cause? Or what if God is cause and effect? or that cause and effect is simply a characteristic of God's nature?

If you want to declare the whole of nature to be equal to God's nature, then that's just another way of saying the same thing. The only issue left here is that these words imply the existence of some entitity above and beyond plain existence possessing that nature. But cause and effect as principle would demand that existing entity to be caused again. Of course you could replace the term "nature" with god. Just avoid having a god's god though.

2) Since a spiritual realm by nature may be impossible to prove/disprove, doesn't a belief in a non-dualistic universe require faith?

A non-dualistic universe can be reasoned out as well in conceptual terms. But whatever type of realm or universe: it requires a faith to become existent for you. To go beyond even that is to become utterly faithless. God and creation arise and fall together.

[Dennis Mahar]

Diebert,
can you stand in a 'waffle-free zone' for once in your life,
and look at this squarely:

Categorical Thinking splits Self/Other,
This is an error in Thinking.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Categorical Thinking splits Self/Other,
This is an error in Thinking.

That 's the error in all thinking, feeling and sensing. Your contextual thinking is just your own version of categorical thinking. All good thinking happens in contexts. Increased awareness increases context, increases good thinking. Think about it before replying this time!

[Dennis Mahar]

Diebert,

That's the error in thinking, sensing and feeling

referring to how Self/Other is split

OK thankyou.

The rest of the dung you wrote is your shit not mine fuck off!

[Cold Cave]

I'm sorry for the cheesy "under my thumb" reference, I hope you didn't have to roll your eyes too hard.
I don't feel stuck in categorical thinking. Maybe I don't understand what you mean.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

referring to how Self/Other is split

It's split alright. And you're dreaming up a fix. It's fucking hilarious, a bunch of self-hynosis. And selling it like some evangelist too. Type some normal prose, do yourself some pain, wuss!

[Dennis Mahar]

Take a bex and lie down love.

[David Quinn]

- DQ says "Take the concept of God, for example. Religious people often use the concept of "God" to explain the existence of the Universe. They say that God is the creator or sustainer of all reality. But even if, for the sake of argument, we assume this to be true, it still does not get to the very core of the matter. For it overlooks the fact that the relationship between this God and the Universe would necessarily be causal in nature. After all, if the principle of cause and effect did not exist to begin with, then not even Almighty God himself could be the cause of the Universe. He would be utterly powerless and not much of a God, to say the least! This alone demonstrates that the principle of cause and effect is more fundamental than God. "

1) Doesn't the very definition of God (the summation of all things, pure, holy, infinite, omnipresent, omniscient) dictate that cause and effect must simply be tools/methods of God's nature? Doesn't the very definition of God mean creator of everything? Including cause and effect? Why can't God be an uncaused cause? Or what if God is cause and effect? or that cause and effect is simply a characteristic of God's nature?

“God” can be defined to mean anything. There are a million different definitions out there. But if we want it to refer to that which is timeless, absolute, beyond life and death, and the creator of all things, then “God “ can only mean cause and effect itself.

Doesn't the very definition of God mean creator of everything? Including cause and effect?

Creative acts are always causal in nature. It thus makes no sense to speak of cause and effect being created by anyone or anything.

Why can't God be an uncaused cause?

If “God” means cause and effect, then God is most definitely uncaused.

- DQ stresses the importance to understanding Ultimate Reality rests on being able to think about the universe as non-dualistic. (ie; there is no metaphysical realm)

2) Since a spiritual realm by nature may be impossible to prove/disprove, doesn't a belief in a non-dualistic universe require faith?

No, it simply requires logical reasoning. The Universe is non-dualistic because it comprises utterly everything. There is nothing outside of, or apart from, the Universe that could turn the Universe into a dualistic entity.

[Kunga]

The Universe is non-dualistic because it comprises utterly everything.

Isn't "non-dualistic", being dualistic ? [dualistic/non-dualistic]

There is nothing outside of, or apart from, the Universe that could turn the Universe into a dualistic entity.

How about a Multiverse ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Multi ... vel_II.svg

[Yes it's a theory....just as much as the Universe is just a theory ? ]
Also, Universe/Multiverse are concepts]

[David Quinn]

The Universe is non-dualistic because it comprises utterly everything.

Isn't "non-dualistic", being dualistic ? [dualistic/non-dualistic]

If one conceives of non-duality as something which is separate from the realm of non-duality, then yes, it becomes just another form of duality. However, one would have to be delusional to do that.

There is nothing outside of, or apart from, the Universe that could turn the Universe into a dualistic entity.

How about a Multiverse ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Multi ... vel_II.svg

[Yes it's a theory....just as much as the Universe is just a theory ? ]
Also, Universe/Multiverse are concepts]

Exactly, they are merely concepts and the distinction you are making here is purely semantic.

If "Universe" (or "God" or "Nature") is defined to be utterly everything, and if there is a "multiverse" that extends beyond what is currently considered by scientists to be the universe, then it too would be a part of God or Nature.

[Cold Cave]

David, maybe my definition of universe is different than yours. I've been under the impression that the universe is comprised of all physical matter and came into existence about 13.7 billion years ago, and as far as I know it only has about 10 billion years left to go. At least this is what modern physicists have led me to believe. The universe is finite, and within the realm of space and time. I cannot see the logical inconsistency in the idea of a creator God who lives outside of these parameters, whether you want to call God Jesus, Allah, or cause and effect. Perhaps there are inconsistencies within the teachings of these religions, and that none of them completely describe the true nature of God....but to say that it is impossible that God can be an active, conscious entity just seems like an opinion, rather than an absolute.

[Cold Cave]

Maybe more simply put, it seems like you are trying to put certain limits on that which by definition is limitless.

[Ataraxia]

Why can't God be an uncaused cause?

Seems to me you answered your own question.

You are positing a God that is illogical by definition.

[Cold Cave]

Uncaused cause God is the only true way God can exist. Just like infinity, our finite minds cannot comprehend it doesn't make it illogical. God is infinity, and cannot possibly have a cause.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

...but to say that it is impossible that God can be an active, conscious entity just seems like an opinion, rather than an absolute.

Cold, the discussion is really about what you think existence is. All that you know about existence is tied up to this universe and your awareness of it. So what you're doing is supposing a possible "entity" which exists outside existence, something universal outside the universe? While it's conceivable that there are very complex, multi-dimensional aspects to reality, like entities moving through time, space and dimensions, at some point you'd have to wonder if this is still something you can call "active" and "conscious" or even "entity". Because what you're describing is something you basically don't know. What you're really dealing with is an image you created of something. What comes first and foremost is your experiencing, how you conceive of existence of anything at all or how to tell truth from ignorance.

[Dennis Mahar]

Well,
Cave looks to be staring at Quinn in OP,
concerning 'faith'.

that, technically,
God is inferred,
no matter how rigorously inferred
or vigorously promulgated.

[Cold Cave]

...but to say that it is impossible that God can be an active, conscious entity just seems like an opinion, rather than an absolute.

Cold, the discussion is really about what you think existence is. All that you know about existence is tied up to this universe and your awareness of it. So what you're doing is supposing a possible "entity" which exists outside existence, something universal outside the universe?

Not exactly. I believe this "entity" comprises all existence, all dimensions, but also created/sustains/is all physical matter, and all other possible realms beyond matter. That cause and effect is the observable vehicle of this "God." It's similar to DQ's "void," except that I chose to believe the final end is something, rather than nothing.


While it's conceivable that there are very complex, multi-dimensional aspects to reality, like entities moving through time, space and dimensions, at some point you'd have to wonder if this is still something you can call "active" and "conscious" or even "entity". Because what you're describing is something you basically don't know. What you're really dealing with is an image you created of something. What comes first and foremost is your experiencing, how you conceive of existence of anything at all or how to tell truth from ignorance.[/quote]

Well we can go into a philosophical black hole talking about "knowledge and reality." I'm fully acknowledging David Hume's points about knowledge and reality, and I'm also fully accepting of David Quinn's position of the reality of cause and effect. I also agree with DQ that there are plenty examples of absolute truth we can use to determine that NOT "everything is relative," as many idiots like to say.

I just don't understand how DQ refers to the universe as infinite. Unless of course he believes there is something beyond physical matter connected with the universe. Because all the physical matter in the universe is finite, granted it is all connected by cause and effect, it will still fall apart one day into oblivion.

[Ataraxia]

our finite minds cannot comprehend it[God] doesn't make it illogical.

Say what?

Again, that makes it illogical by definition. Logic is something done be humans. How can you engage in logic on a subject you can't comprehend. It is self contradictory.

Moreover,you have a finite mind. And on your own account, finite minds can't comprehend this entity. So how can you posit an entity that is beyond your comprehension. It is ludicrous. What is this 'thing' that you are talking about?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Not exactly. I believe this "entity" comprises all existence, all dimensions, but also created/sustains/is all physical matter, and all other possible realms beyond matter. That cause and effect is the observable vehicle of this "God." It's similar to DQ's "void," except that I chose to believe the final end is something, rather than nothing.

Could you describe your own relationship to this entity you've named God? Why do you think it's important as possibility to maintain? Most believers would describe their god as a way to talk to the universe or some transpersonal force itself, to negotiate, to challenge, to confess, to draw comfort from or to have some ritual or tradition and so on. It doesn't seem just an academic question to you, because why have some metaphysics that can be understood becoming a "vehicle" for an unknown? It doesn't seem a question of it being impossible, just a question of why going there at all with philosophy? God is also generally way too badly defined to be part of any philosophical discussion.

Because all the physical matter in the universe is finite, granted it is all connected by cause and effect, it will still fall apart one day into oblivion.

Why do you think that? Everything comes and goes naturally but what's next?

[Russell Parr]

I just don't understand how DQ refers to the universe as infinite. Unless of course he believes there is something beyond physical matter connected with the universe. Because all the physical matter in the universe is finite, granted it is all connected by cause and effect, it will still fall apart one day into oblivion.

More accurately, causation posits that there definitely is 'something' beyond all consciously observable phenomena, although, strictly speaking, it cannot be called 'something', as the dualistic concept of something/nothing (and all conceptions) arise only within consciously observable phenomena. Thus, applying our own ideas and definitions to that which lies beyond our consciousness is obviously illogical.

Blanket terms like God, the All, or the Infinite are sometimes found to be practical enough (around here, anyway) to refer to reality and all of its phenomena as a whole, both within and beyond conscious experience.

[David Quinn]

David, maybe my definition of universe is different than yours. I've been under the impression that the universe is comprised of all physical matter and came into existence about 13.7 billion years ago, and as far as I know it only has about 10 billion years left to go. At least this is what modern physicists have led me to believe. The universe is finite, and within the realm of space and time. I cannot see the logical inconsistency in the idea of a creator God who lives outside of these parameters, whether you want to call God Jesus, Allah, or cause and effect. Perhaps there are inconsistencies within the teachings of these religions, and that none of them completely describe the true nature of God....but to say that it is impossible that God can be an active, conscious entity just seems like an opinion, rather than an absolute.

As a spiritual philosopher, my interest has always been understanding the fundamental nature of reality as a whole - which is to say, the fundamental nature of utterly everything - not just the nature of a hypothetical god, or the nature of the physical universe. With this in mind, it serves no real purpose to arbitrarily divide reality into smaller portions (such as "universe" and "God") and treat these portions as fundamentally different from one another.

David, maybe my definition of universe is different than yours. I've been under the impression that the universe is comprised of all physical matter and came into existence about 13.7 billion years ago, and as far as I know it only has about 10 billion years left to go. At least this is what modern physicists have led me to believe. The universe is finite, and within the realm of space and time.

Most scientists have no interest in philosophic understanding and the way they define their terms reflects this lack of interest. When it comes to the "universe", for example, they prefer to exclude anything that can't be observed through their instruments or mathematically theorized about. Their "universe" is a scientifically pragmatic one - which is fine as far as it goes, but such a definition doesn't help the philosopher who wants to understand reality as a whole.

I cannot see the logical inconsistency in the idea of a creator God who lives outside of these parameters, whether you want to call God Jesus, Allah, or cause and effect.

For all we know there could be 10 billion laughing lizards dwelling beyond the observable universe who create new matter with every guffaw. But what of it?

We could speculate endlessly about all sorts of exotic things which may or may not exist beyond our sights, but it’s futile and irrelevant as far as understanding the nature of reality is concerned.

When Jesus urged us to seek solid foundations and avoid building our houses on sand, he wasn’t asking us to have blind faith in a speculative God that may or may not exist somewhere else. He was imploring us to go deeper - into the very fabric of reality in the here and now.

I just don't understand how DQ refers to the universe as infinite. Unless of course he believes there is something beyond physical matter connected with the universe. Because all the physical matter in the universe is finite, granted it is all connected by cause and effect, it will still fall apart one day into oblivion.

If a god is needed to keep the universe from falling into oblivion, would this god itself need a god to keep from falling into oblivion?

It’s not so much a matter of saying that the universe is infinite. Rather, it’s a matter of recognizing that the infinite (being utterly everything) necessarily incorporates the observable, physical universe, and that the fundamental nature of the observable universe is identical to the fundamental nature of the ALL.

A mere glance at a breeze blowing through the trees is enough to reveal everything there is to know about God. You don't have to go looking in exotic places beyond the universe.