Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 1986/2297
(21-Jul-2008 at 18:49)


You need to make a distinction between two kinds of selfsufficiency, metaphysical and 'logical' (lacking a better term).

When I say reason or faith is self sufficient, I obviously don't mean that metaphysically. Reason or faith both depend on a reasoner/believer. What I mean is that they don't allow for another logical ground without getting into a circular argument. You cannot understand faith by searching for a logical reason why there is faith. As soon as there is a reason for faith, it no longer is that faith. If we knew that it was probable or even just true that God existed, we could no longer have faith that God exists.

Slightly differently, reason does not allow for a logical ground either. If you are trying to determine the value of reason you can not do so other then with reasonable arguments, by which you already implicitly accept the value of reason.

When we're speaking about what's self sufficient metaphysically/ontologically speaking, I'm not arrogant enough to make statements about that. I agree with Kant that the human mind can never get beyond that infinite regress. We cannot know, nor even comprehend something that is self sufficient in this matter of speaking. Maybe everything is, maybe nothing is, maybe one being is, maybe the whole question is pointless. Reason cannot go here, only faith can.

As for the distinction between philosophy and faith, I think the above is a valid although somewhat crude distinction. Philosophy, ideally speaking at least, should stop where reason itself shows us the limit of reason. Faith has no business with the limits of reason. Or, perhaps more exact, the limits of reasons are what creates space for faith.

Modern world I'm not pleased to meet you

You just bring me down
#61  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Caelis666 Add Caelis666 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1014/1637
(22-Jul-2008 at 06:57)
Re: Christ the Unknowable

Originally Posted by Caelis666: View Post
You need to make a distinction between two kinds of selfsufficiency, metaphysical and 'logical' (lacking a better term).

When I say reason or faith is self sufficient, I obviously don't mean that metaphysically. Reason or faith both depend on a reasoner/believer. What I mean is that they don't allow for another logical ground without getting into a circular argument. You cannot understand faith by searching for a logical reason why there is faith. As soon as there is a reason for faith, it no longer is that faith. If we knew that it was probable or even just true that God existed, we could no longer have faith that God exists.

Slightly differently, reason does not allow for a logical ground either. If you are trying to determine the value of reason you can not do so other then with reasonable arguments, by which you already implicitly accept the value of reason.

When we're speaking about what's self sufficient metaphysically/ontologically speaking, I'm not arrogant enough to make statements about that. I agree with Kant that the human mind can never get beyond that infinite regress. We cannot know, nor even comprehend something that is self sufficient in this matter of speaking. Maybe everything is, maybe nothing is, maybe one being is, maybe the whole question is pointless. Reason cannot go here, only faith can.

As for the distinction between philosophy and faith, I think the above is a valid although somewhat crude distinction. Philosophy, ideally speaking at least, should stop where reason itself shows us the limit of reason. Faith has no business with the limits of reason. Or, perhaps more exact, the limits of reasons are what creates space for faith.
Perhaps another way to frame this situtation would be to say that rationality in human beings exists in an irrational universe. We can begin to know about the universe, in relation to ourselves, but in our limited view, rationality can only know what it is programmed or presupposed to know.

This is possibily where the two discussions might also overlap. The concept of infinite regress may be meaningless, because as it is based on rationality, which is reactionary and learned, and it is and forever will be lagging behind reality. Perhaps to know reality is not to know, but to experience, with the letting go of exclusive rationality and the introduction or willingness of irrationality.

If the irrationality and that which represents a higher reality than pure rationality is tangible then in order to interact with it we have to depend on the forces of irrationality to impart itself on us. If the irrational has already manifested itself, or is readily able to do so, then perhaps it could be experienced in the openness of faith. The human condition can not grasp the totality of the universe in rational form, so then maybe it is up to us to be willing for the flowing world around us to tell us of its irrational truth, and possibly, the honest form of God.
#62  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1015/1637
(22-Jul-2008 at 13:05)
From where does the sacred and irrational truth come from. No works of man can suffice to reach this beyond, but this beyond can suffice to reach man. Where does this leave us but to recognise the grace of the divine, the grace of God, the divine truth.

Man does not find the divine, he accepts when it is apparent, and when he accepts, it is unconditional. There is at least one Scripture that refers to the salvation from the human state by grace alone. This is the only way to accept God. If it is true and tangible, then this life can begin instantaneously.
#63  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 473/742
(22-Jul-2008 at 15:02)


Re: Christ the Unknowable

Originally Posted by Caelis666:
You already go wrong in assuming a hierarchic structure of existance. If this were the case however, nothing could exist.
Originally Posted by Armitage: View Post
Im merely asking you, how you (or others) reason everythings self-sufficiency. How can "faith" be self-sufficient? We can substitute 'faith' with 'God' or 'human being', I think it makes no difference. And another question connected to this area of thought, how can something be self-sufficient and yet have a cause? I do think that cause and self-sufficiency are contradictory to each other.
Assuming we're talking about the ontological (metaphysical) type of self-sufficiency; it's a difficult question, that may indeed go beyond the human mind to ever adequately answer. Personally, i have the feeling that the myth of infinite regress amounts to a question asked in the wrong way, somewhat similar to other classical dilemmas like 'mind or matter?'. If we find that everything rests on something else, then we can infinitely keep asking what that next turtle stands on, but the wiser conclusion to draw may be that things simply fundamentally co-arise. I also think evolution has shown that the 'effect' may be more complex, more inclusive and more conscious than its 'cause', which may make looking for a ground by asking 'what came before it?' futile. The real question in my opinion is 'what is life transcending toward?', because the pattern that it manifests as is clearly a hierarchical one of self-transcendence (both externally as matter and internally as mind). We may be realizing God rather than descending from him.


Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung: View Post
It is often true that our togetherness brings about profundity, and I think that humans always keep a fundamental togetherness, but when you point out that few have 'arrived at the conclusion' this still leads to an essence of esotericism, the kind which, in our togetherness, remains sort after and where one and many continue to seek submersion in.

I understand that human life in the day to day is based in togetherness and on some small level the experience of natural nondualism is tip-toed upon by most people. This is also why, I believe, the explanation of such concepts to others is not completely alien, all, by virtue of our nature of togetherness, is openly held within the collective consciousness.

Now, I also think that it takes a much more developed self awareness to realise such togetherness in those that are beyond our close physical space and cultural paradigms. It is, if your will, our individualised karmic stains that distance us from true universalism. It is one thing to pick up a stone in a distant land and feel profundity, but it is another thing, in the problem of the human Other of that land, which stands as a much more powerful obsticle to overcome or find harmony with.

On a practical level, whom is it from we learn our sacred consciousness? Does it take a great deal of deconstruction to find it? True universalism reaches beyond life and death itself, such that reaching a conscious awareness of this, in the sacred, requires an insight into the before time and the after time, the time before you and the time after you, as if where as the present. Dissolving the self and physical space which has thus defined our progress for the journey so far must be shed back and discarded like a new creature of a new season. Like the progress of no-progess or the instruction of no-instruction. I guess that this is in us, but is a distant fable enough guidence along the way?
That state of consciousness is rare yeah (because far 'above the average'), and in that sense indeed esoteric. I think it's a state we're slowly moving towards as a human community though (just as we historicallly went from biocentric to egocentric to sociocentric to world-centric already), and possibly completely regardless of any individual seeking to immerse in it. I agree with you that many people seem to be able to intuitively glimpse the experience of nondualism, whether by virtue of our collective (sub?)consciousness or not. I also agree that it takes a very well-developed self-awareness to arrive at a global consciousness like that, let alone to retain it and live your life from that level.

As for who do we learn it from, and how much deconstruction brings it out, those are complex questions. Part of me says our efforts to achieve it don't even end up touching on it; it just grows historically and expresses itself through humanity without our conscious control (seeking may actually be the greatest obstacle to finding, etc). In that sense, it can't be learned, and the more you stress having to achieve it, the less room there is in your consciousness for it to spontaneously come streaming through. Do nothing, and see everything be achieved, as Taoism would say. On the other hand, there are the historical teachers who did impart their knowledge on others, and stressed a certain discipline that would allow it to flourish.

Quote:
I wasn't hoping for a uniqueness, but moreso a way away from the suggestive. What nondualism leads to, in a more expansive sense, is like a scooping-up or flightedness that opens itself up within us to a beyond-world where a sense of the spiritual, immaterial kind of supernatural force begins to blossom. I think that nondualism and what it means truely relies on this experience or even existence to sweep itself up from the trappings of material reflection and valuations. One seeks to live in this state, as much as possible, because on some level we realise that this is the only state that there truely is.

To address the problem of esotericism and few arriving at conclusions, I wanted to here your take on the path of no-path. How does one set free from the density of mind which, as one, we all seem stuck to? Universalism requires a universal awakening, does it not. Do we ascend to the heavens like a celestrial ascetic, or do we include the universe in the consciousness of ascenting, which universalism might suggest?
I agree on the slowly opening-up within you feeling, that is largely how i've experienced it as well. I'm not sure about the 'seeking to live in this state' though, because to me it seems that's part of the wrongful conceptualization; IT REALLY IS THE ONLY STATE THAT THERE IS! Every experience is nondual, not divided into an object that is experienced and a subject that experiences. THERE IS JUST EXPERIENCING. Pain, Pleasure, Hot, Cold, Certainty, Doubt, Short, Long, Beauty, Ugly, I, You, We, It, Unity, Division, Good, Bad, Love, Hate, Sleeping, Awakening; all equally divine. Because 'Divine' doesn't reside in the temporary experience of either up or down, Divine is the ability to experience. And existence is nothing but constant Experiencing, hence through and through Divine.

No setting free from mind needed, mind is the same blossoming flower. No universal awakening required, understand that dozing too is great. No heaven to ascend to to become whole, earth is no less perfect. No nature to descend to to become whole, culture is is an equally great expression of Spirit. The whole is right here, you can only miss it by embracing the partial as somehow being better.

[just noticed your post doesnt end there, but life beckons, i'll be back later]

Your brain is unique in the history of the universe. Use it wisely.
#64  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Dusk Illz Add Dusk Illz to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1987/2297
(22-Jul-2008 at 18:06)


1. Things fundamentally co-arise? While that is a nice tagline it doesn't mean anything in itself. How do things co-arise? Why do things co-arise? What does the word arise even mean in this context? It's empty words to veil a complete incapability to get knowledge on that level of existance. The problem of infinite regress is indeed not fit to come to an understanding of these things, but the fact that it's still perceived as a problem should be a clear indication for us. Understand the limits of your understanding before starting metaphysics. Kant's lesson has still not been grasped properly.

2. I really thought that we left teleology behind us somewhere in the 17th century. To use a nice quote: the only progress of humanity has been in the weapons that it uses. When people start talking about human history as some necessary ongoing process I tend to stop taking the discussion seriously.

3. While you are right that there can never be a strict seperation between subject and object (realism), you cross the line towards the other direction. By assuming a complete non-seperation of subject and object you must accept extreme idealism at best, or more likely, solipsism, because where can you make place for another system of experiences that is not part of your own system of experience if there is nothing outside of experience? I don't think that you want to take either of those paths, so your assumption is too extreme.
The truth is that there must be a seperation of some kind between subject and object. The subject can only realise itself as a subject by distinguishing itself from an object, the not-I (Sartre).

Modern world I'm not pleased to meet you

You just bring me down
#65  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Caelis666 Add Caelis666 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1016/1637
(23-Jul-2008 at 12:31)
Re: Christ the Unknowable

Originally Posted by Caelis666: View Post
[...]

The truth is that there must be a seperation of some kind between subject and object. The subject can only realise itself as a subject by distinguishing itself from an object, the not-I (Sartre).
Neither subject or object seems to actually arise in the first place, unless I force it to be so. It is like if I took a large stick and pulled it quickly through water - look! the water has parted, they are seperate! - but this is because, only for a moment, I force it to be so. I can then repeat this demonstration as many times as I like to prove a point, but my force onto things is also required in every instance, and this is a deliberate distortion of the readiness of nature.

I think many Buddhist Zen Koans touch on similar reflections, like the sound of a tree falling in the lonely forest, for one. Does the tree make a sound? Yes or no? Well, neither is the true answer, because the nature Koan is to consider beyond logic, the distortion of human forces and the antagonistic conclusions that result. You need insight into the true nature of things in order to understand. So then, to revist the above, are the bodies of water seperate? That is, is there a seperation between the subject and object? Yes or no?
#66  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 474/742
(23-Jul-2008 at 15:39)


Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung: View Post
Sometimes I am bothered by the Other Mind. 'They' seem completely isolated and caught up in their one-eyes pursuits that it then reflects on myself and what I mean to the world. There is no inherent collective connection, or at least there isn't anymore, and evidently there are billions of cases of this kind of syndrome going on in people. I suspect it is also a problem in the way that I identify with myself, as isolated, but it is by no means a case of willful disorientation.

Experiencing this, there is doubt in my mind that by reaching for the stars as an individual atom that the rest of the body will follow. It is also true, and possible, that any cultural reflection of the perfect and sacred can also represent the self, but I fear that, as I am by nature critical, these actions owards submersion in the sacred will not be right for the larger and more perfect picture.
Of course we all seem isolated and caught up in our own pursuits, that's the nature of this world. The fact that we're ALL isolated, also shows just how collective that isolation actually is, doesn't it? A billion people feeling loneliness; is that togetherness, or really loneliness? Or is it only loneliness as long as you don't realize that the other 999.999 million people feel the same as you? To me, that collective connection is always there, and the emotions that we experience are in fact one of the things in which humans are most united.

I'm guessing the body is moving regardless of any stars you reach for or sacred you submerge in. You can try to reach ahead of it, but it's forces will tend to pull you back to equilibrium. Same if you lag behind; its average will drag you back toward the cultural mean. That aside, how do you envision a striving for the sacred that goes against the larger perfect picture.. Can you elaborate?


Originally Posted by Caelis666: View Post
1. Things fundamentally co-arise? While that is a nice tagline it doesn't mean anything in itself. How do things co-arise? Why do things co-arise? What does the word arise even mean in this context? It's empty words to veil a complete incapability to get knowledge on that level of existance. The problem of infinite regress is indeed not fit to come to an understanding of these things, but the fact that it's still perceived as a problem should be a clear indication for us. Understand the limits of your understanding before starting metaphysics. Kant's lesson has still not been grasped properly.
I realize it's a frail statement, that in turn brings with it many more questions than answers. That situation is no different with our current concept of causality however, which also begs the endless question of 'but what caused that cause?'. Let alone tangling with a question like 'Why do things cause things?'. When the inability to establish a first cause leads you to conclude that nothing can exist in hierarchy, and existence therefore must know no hierarchic structures either, i begin to believe you sacrifice reality at the altar of hypothetical reason however. I certainly see plenty of hierarchy in existence, in every field from matter to mind, so i don't understand how you can dismiss hierarchy in light of what we know of evolution for example. Life itself seems to fundamentally express itself hierarchically. In my view simultaneously in the interior, exterior, individual and collective. My suggestion that things co-arise should be seen in that light; as a potential line of thought for imagining how those domains affect eachother. Classical problems like Mind or Matter?, Subject or Object?, Body or Mind?, still exist as well after all, but in my opinion not because we aren't fit to ever understand these things, but rather because we cling to a naive view where one is supposed to have caused the other.

Quote:
2. I really thought that we left teleology behind us somewhere in the 17th century. To use a nice quote: the only progress of humanity has been in the weapons that it uses. When people start talking about human history as some necessary ongoing process I tend to stop taking the discussion seriously.
We did leave teleology behind, but thankfully that doesn't mean we'll never again be allowed to discuss purpose. More importantly, i'm not imbuing human history with some imaginary ideal of my own deepest desire. I look at the history of evolution, in all the fields where evolution is visible, and study its pattern; on a grand scale, what is life developing towards? Ironically, once you've done that, it becomes very hard to take people who say "the only progress of humanity has been in the weapons that it uses" seriously. They are either depressed philosophers in times of war, or hypocrites who confuse the fact that modernity brought about new disasters with the fact that it never brought about massive new dignities first, as every epoch does.

Quote:
3. While you are right that there can never be a strict seperation between subject and object (realism), you cross the line towards the other direction. By assuming a complete non-seperation of subject and object you must accept extreme idealism at best, or more likely, solipsism, because where can you make place for another system of experiences that is not part of your own system of experience if there is nothing outside of experience? I don't think that you want to take either of those paths, so your assumption is too extreme.
The truth is that there must be a seperation of some kind between subject and object. The subject can only realise itself as a subject by distinguishing itself from an object, the not-I (Sartre).
It would be too complex to completely outline, but what i assume is not a complete non-seperation of subject and object, though in experience there is no seperation. It is idealist in a way, but not solipsist, because i certainly believe in other minds as well as that minds share experiences. I don't fully grasp "because where can you make place for another system of experiences that is not part of your own system of experience if there is nothing outside of experience?", so maybe you could explain or rephrase your line of thought there for me.
As for, The truth is that there must be a seperation of some kind between subject and object. The subject can only realise itself as a subject by distinguishing itself from an object, the not-I, this is a very important aspect indeed. What happens when the subject doesn't look outside, but looks inside and makes itself the object (as in meditation for example)? It becomes aware of its body as an object, hence the body can not be the subject. It becomes aware of its mind as an object, hence the mind can not be the subject. It becomes aware of its own awareness of mind and body as objects, hence even this awareness can not be the subject. What is this awareness that ever recedes into the background when attention is focused on it? What is the nature of this consciousness, that allows for all these objects to come up in its space, but can never itself be gazed on? Yes, the subject needs an object to realize itself as subject, but even when there is no longer such an object in mind, and there thus is no subject, there is still awareness. The space within which subject and object arise, remains when they haven't arisen. Awareness precedes subject and object. Experience precedes everything else. That is nondualism in a nutshell.

Your brain is unique in the history of the universe. Use it wisely.
#67  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Dusk Illz Add Dusk Illz to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1989/2297
(23-Jul-2008 at 18:17)


Re: Christ the Unknowable

Originally Posted by Dusk Illz: View Post
I realize it's a frail statement, that in turn brings with it many more questions than answers. That situation is no different with our current concept of causality however, which also begs the endless question of 'but what caused that cause?'. Let alone tangling with a question like 'Why do things cause things?'. When the inability to establish a first cause leads you to conclude that nothing can exist in hierarchy, and existence therefore must know no hierarchic structures either, i begin to believe you sacrifice reality at the altar of hypothetical reason however. I certainly see plenty of hierarchy in existence, in every field from matter to mind, so i don't understand how you can dismiss hierarchy in light of what we know of evolution for example. Life itself seems to fundamentally express itself hierarchically. In my view simultaneously in the interior, exterior, individual and collective. My suggestion that things co-arise should be seen in that light; as a potential line of thought for imagining how those domains affect eachother. Classical problems like Mind or Matter?, Subject or Object?, Body or Mind?, still exist as well after all, but in my opinion not because we aren't fit to ever understand these things, but rather because we cling to a naive view where one is supposed to have caused the other.
Questions about the reasons of causations are fundamentally missleading. Hume has shown us that any answer to this question would be impossible to grasp for the human mind. That does however not change the fact that there is causation.
I personally prefer Derrida's view on the subject. The infinite regress is simply a reality for which we have to make place in our theories. The fundamental unsolvability of this problem is also a reality. We can then not conclude otherwise than that an underlying ground for this infinite regress is not a part of human reality. Every appearance is a sign for another appearance that caused is. We can't find an end because there is no end. Nietzsche declared the death of the hinterwelten and I'm willing to follow him on that one. The search for a reality beyond our own, the cause of all causes, the original arising or whatever you want to call it is simply mistaken. It is nonsense. All there is is signs.

Quote:
We did leave teleology behind, but thankfully that doesn't mean we'll never again be allowed to discuss purpose. More importantly, i'm not imbuing human history with some imaginary ideal of my own deepest desire. I look at the history of evolution, in all the fields where evolution is visible, and study its pattern; on a grand scale, what is life developing towards? Ironically, once you've done that, it becomes very hard to take people who say "the only progress of humanity has been in the weapons that it uses" seriously. They are either depressed philosophers in times of war, or hypocrites who confuse the fact that modernity brought about new disasters with the fact that it never brought about massive new dignities first, as every epoch does.
This is flawed. Everyone who understands the theory of evolution a little will be able to tell you that there is no point towards which life is developing. Evolution is the constant adaption towards new environments. It does not have an ending goal, nor is their a logical progressive pattern. If there was, there would need to be a reason for this pattern. What is it? If you can't answer that question, then yes, you are guilty of wishful thinking.

Quote:
It would be too complex to completely outline, but what i assume is not a complete non-seperation of subject and object, though in experience there is no seperation. It is idealist in a way, but not solipsist, because i certainly believe in other minds as well as that minds share experiences. I don't fully grasp "because where can you make place for another system of experiences that is not part of your own system of experience if there is nothing outside of experience?", so maybe you could explain or rephrase your line of thought there for me.
As for, The truth is that there must be a seperation of some kind between subject and object. The subject can only realise itself as a subject by distinguishing itself from an object, the not-I, this is a very important aspect indeed. What happens when the subject doesn't look outside, but looks inside and makes itself the object (as in meditation for example)? It becomes aware of its body as an object, hence the body can not be the subject. It becomes aware of its mind as an object, hence the mind can not be the subject. It becomes aware of its own awareness of mind and body as objects, hence even this awareness can not be the subject. What is this awareness that ever recedes into the background when attention is focused on it? What is the nature of this consciousness, that allows for all these objects to come up in its space, but can never itself be gazed on? Yes, the subject needs an object to realize itself as subject, but even when there is no longer such an object in mind, and there thus is no subject, there is still awareness. The space within which subject and object arise, remains when they haven't arisen. Awareness precedes subject and object. Experience precedes everything else. That is nondualism in a nutshell.
The point is the following: If all there is is experience, then all there is is unity, in that experience (Kant's apperception if you like). If all there is is unity then you can no longer take seriously the difference between multiple systems of experience (which means, different minds). This difference can necessarilly not be experienced. Conclusion: If everything is experience, solipsism becomes unavoidable.
I also disagree with the whole awareness precedes subject and object. It's simply impossible. Awareness is always a subject's awarenes of an object. It's true that we can never be our own object in a sense (which is why the Descartes' cogito fails after all), but this is precisely what the seperation between subject and object IS. A subject is different from an object because it cannot itself be made into an object. The objectification of awareness always necessarily chases itself in a race that it cannot win.
I do not here want to support dualism, but I don't think that a seperation between subject and object leads to a dualistic theory (although it can). The connection, the interdependence of subject and object lies precisely there-in that they are seperated. The subject can only exist as subject in as far as it is different from the object and the object only exists as object in as far as there is awareness of it as object. The mind does not constitute the world (idealism), both the world and the mind pressuppose each other.
Another reason why we can never know anything about the origins or the fundament of existence.

Modern world I'm not pleased to meet you

You just bring me down
#68  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Caelis666 Add Caelis666 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1017/1637
(24-Jul-2008 at 01:16)
Re: Christ the Unknowable

Originally Posted by Dusk Illz: View Post
Of course we all seem isolated and caught up in our own pursuits, that's the nature of this world. The fact that we're ALL isolated, also shows just how collective that isolation actually is, doesn't it?
I'll pull you up here, because it seems that some are more isolated than others. Also, some share a much higher collective awareness, like a group of monks or esoteric elite, who on some level are able to bridge that real and physical isolation that the majority of people would probably experience. And others again, sadly, are just unreachable. I guess I have a problem with this because we have to rule out ascention by works, and get over the bitterness, but I will get back to that in a sec. I generally agree though, that broadly there is a collective that binds us all. So I suppose the range of points in humanity does not really matter, as long as we recognise Grace. Sure, it's a loaded word, but I do not mean it to be. We can substite it for something else if this word has too strong associations in the mind.

Quote:
A billion people feeling loneliness; is that togetherness, or really loneliness? Or is it only loneliness as long as you don't realize that the other 999.999 million people feel the same as you? To me, that collective connection is always there, and the emotions that we experience are in fact one of the things in which humans are most united.

I'm guessing the body is moving regardless of any stars you reach for or sacred you submerge in. You can try to reach ahead of it, but it's forces will tend to pull you back to equilibrium. Same if you lag behind; its average will drag you back toward the cultural mean. That aside, how do you envision a striving for the sacred that goes against the larger perfect picture.. Can you elaborate?
The picture of equilibrium that you depict is something I agree with. I suppose this comes down being apart of the greater force of things, whatever you want to call it. What I mean by striving for the sacred that goes against the larger perfect picture is that, as you explored earlier, by trying to reach ahead we often make the situation worse off for us (in terms of geniunely becoming aware of the divine). It is like the struggle in quicksand against entropy. The best action is to give up because kicking and screaming may be satisfying but it does not ultimately help.

I have to bring up the tension between works and grace again, which I think treads along the same lines as nondualism. While we can be aware of the force beyond us, as it acts on us, then we best try to become one with it. Something like that. Christianity sometimes understands that no power directly rests in our hands. Though practically trying to overcome the awkwardness of this is another matter altogether. The only way is to find salvation is in the personal divine beyond, and cut out any notion of struggle altogether. Maybe this is wishful thinking, but maybe in experience it makes sense.
#69  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1018/1637
(24-Jul-2008 at 11:17)
All men impose themselves on the universe without exception. Thus, ignorance will never be completely expelled, and man will never know reality, only appearance, unless the boundary between knower and known is reduced to perfect unity.
#70  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1990/2297
(24-Jul-2008 at 11:32)


Re: Christ the Unknowable

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung: View Post
All men impose themselves on the universe without exception. Thus, ignorance will never be completely expelled, and man will never know reality, only appearance, unless the boundary between knower and known is reduced to perfect unity.
That's hilarious. Kudos for making my day.

Modern world I'm not pleased to meet you

You just bring me down

Last edited by Caelis666, 24-Jul-2008 at 11:33.
#71  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Caelis666 Add Caelis666 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
He said He would RETURN - JESUS CHRIST - Today? - Reply ok? Kitty Kate Religious Discussions 38 27-Jan-2005 08:04
Christ, Son of God, Prophet or..... cult leader? Geck Religious Discussions 29 04-Oct-2004 22:49
Is being gay a sin? heliboy911 Polls Heaven 164 15-Jul-2004 23:02
The passion of the christ and christ seen from a pagans eyes smakkz Religious Discussions 12 10-Apr-2004 20:54
The Martyrdom of Elan Christ Elan SsM The Lunatic Asylum 260 05-Sep-2003 03:29


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 06:51.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.