Nubblies.net Forums - Wtf Did You Google To End Up Here?  

Go Back   Nubblies.net Forums - Wtf Did You Google To End Up Here? > Crazy Stuff > I'm Right, Fuck You

Notices

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 08-04-2014, 12:52 PM   #1451 (permalink)
Spice Master
 
Mr. Blonde's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Thanks for clearing that up, Repug. Good call on pumping the breaks. I understand more what you mean by needing definitions now, I misinterpreted what Dent was getting at earlier, (sorry Dent).

I'm excited about this --i'll respond soon!

Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.

― Terence McKenna
Mr. Blonde is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-04-2014, 12:58 PM   #1452 (permalink)
Almost there...
 
Repugnant Abomination's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,979
Internets: 161638
Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Test

Man this board is jacked up lately.

Anyway, cool. Look forward to reading your response.
Repugnant Abomination is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-04-2014, 02:14 PM   #1453 (permalink)
Spice Master
 
Mr. Blonde's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I have some preliminary questions before I can accurately state my current position (which I may not be able to do, but we'll see.) Please be mindful that I have never taken a philosophy course and all of my philosophical education has come from books I have sought out or information on the internet. So I may ask some questions that might seem "dumb", but I ask them in all earnestness to learn more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination View Post
Epistemology is broken into two main branches: Rationalism and Empiricism. In philosophy, empiricism is generally a theory of knowledge focusing on the role of experience, especially experience based on perceptual observations by the senses. Rationalism is the view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge" or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification". More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive".
I suppose my main question here, is about the terms "intellectual and deductive". Are these not, in some way, drawn from sensory and perceptual events themselves? What I mean is, in order to intellectualize or deduce anything, must it not draw from the original senses and perceptions that built the framework which allows for intellectualization and deduction? Is there such a thing as "pure" intellectualizing, "pure" deduction, severed from at least a primary sensory experience?


Quote:
Is the only way we can truly know things through sense experience or can we rely on our intellect to come to non-observable truths?
The Allegory of the Cave automatically casts doubt on sense experience for me, and I tend to be skeptical of the hubris of human interpretation of the universe these days. That being said, we don't really have a choice, except to use human interpretation at this point in history.

Also, can you give me an easy example of a non-observable truth that we can use intellect to deduce? I'm better at understanding concepts with concrete examples (when possible, of course).

Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.

― Terence McKenna
Mr. Blonde is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-04-2014, 02:37 PM   #1454 (permalink)
Almost there...
 
Repugnant Abomination's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,979
Internets: 161638
Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde View Post
I have some preliminary questions before I can accurately state my current position (which I may not be able to do, but we'll see.) Please be mindful that I have never taken a philosophy course and all of my philosophical education has come from books I have sought out or information on the internet. So I may ask some questions that might seem "dumb", but I ask them in all earnestness to learn more.
Don't worry about it. I'm not an expert or anything and have only taken a few classes on philosophy myself. A lot of my understanding has come from reading on my own and talking with my wife, who minored in philosophy. I'll try to answer your questions the best I can.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde View Post
I suppose my main question here, is about the terms "intellectual and deductive". Are these not, in some way, drawn from sensory and perceptual events themselves? What I mean is, in order to intellectualize or deduce anything, must it not draw from the original senses and perceptions that built the framework which allows for intellectualization and deduction? Is there such a thing as "pure" intellectualizing, "pure" deduction, severed from at least a primary sensory experience?
I'm going to throw out a few broad terms and ideas here that might not address Transhumanist ideas and concerns. Stop me if I make an assumption you don't agree with.

Clearly to exist is to experience, but reduced and regressed as much as possible, we could theorize (for the sake of argument) that there is a being who is blind, mute and deaf, that doesn't need to eat or drink, and is suspended in mid-air. Like a disembodied consciousness I guess, with no frame of reference. Descartes came up with the line: "I think, therefore I am." Even filtered through human language I think this is compelling, because the above consciousness might not be able to articulate that thought without language, but it would still be self-aware. And that self-awareness is proof in and of itself that it exists, and it is purely within its own mind.

I'm not sure if that answer helps or not, but the idea is basically that if something by definition exists I don't have to experience it to know it's true.

"The inspiration of rationalism has always been mathematics, and rationalists have stressed the superiority of the deductive over all other methods in point of certainty. Certainly numbers do not have a tangible existence in the world. They exist in our collective consciousness. And yet they are not arbitrary products of our imaginations in the way that fictional characters are."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde View Post
The Allegory of the Cave automatically casts doubt on sense experience.
Exactly. This is a very famous example.
Repugnant Abomination is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-06-2014, 12:30 PM   #1455 (permalink)
Almost there...
 
Repugnant Abomination's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,979
Internets: 161638
Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute
Default

So...? Anyone?
Repugnant Abomination is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-06-2014, 01:01 PM   #1456 (permalink)
Spice Master
 
Mr. Blonde's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination View Post
Clearly to exist is to experience, but reduced and regressed as much as possible, we could theorize (for the sake of argument) that there is a being who is blind, mute and deaf, that doesn't need to eat or drink, and is suspended in mid-air. Like a disembodied consciousness I guess, with no frame of reference. Descartes came up with the line: "I think, therefore I am." Even filtered through human language I think this is compelling, because the above consciousness might not be able to articulate that thought without language, but it would still be self-aware. And that self-awareness is proof in and of itself that it exists, and it is purely within its own mind.
I've been contemplating this a lot, that is why I haven't replied yet. I actually started writing a short-science-fiction story about aforementioned hypothetical being last night (the example of which is very close to ancient Hindu scripture) at IHOP. I'll post it when I'm done -- or until I can't write any further.

As it stands right now, I suppose I would define myself as a Rationalist --- but with same as you, former hardcore Empiricist. I find that if one follows certain logical or intellectual rabbit-holes to their logical conclusions (or lack thereof), it seems we can arrive at knowledge of something "existing" that we have not personally experienced.

Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.

― Terence McKenna

Last edited by Mr. Blonde; 08-06-2014 at 01:10 PM.
Mr. Blonde is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-06-2014, 01:13 PM   #1457 (permalink)
Lost in Hilbert Spice
 
Dent's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounded by knaves and fools
Posts: 3,460
Internets: 174266
Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute
Default

The only part of the world we have direct access to is the contents of our mind, the rest is inferential.
Dent is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-06-2014, 01:39 PM   #1458 (permalink)
Almost there...
 
Repugnant Abomination's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,979
Internets: 161638
Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Do you guys have anything else to add before continuing?
Repugnant Abomination is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-06-2014, 01:51 PM   #1459 (permalink)
Spice Master
 
Mr. Blonde's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute
Default

No, but I would like to expand on this

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dent View Post
The only part of the world we have direct access to is the contents of our mind, the rest is inferential.
at the appropriate time. Mainly about our relationship with our environment -- also, we will obviously have to get to the qualities of "mind", at some point.

Continue, dear sir!


Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.

― Terence McKenna
Mr. Blonde is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-07-2014, 07:31 PM   #1460 (permalink)
Gangnam Style
 
f3lix's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DH's Massage Parlor
Posts: 6,383
Internets: 213510
f3lix has a reputation beyond repute f3lix has a reputation beyond repute f3lix has a reputation beyond repute f3lix has a reputation beyond repute f3lix has a reputation beyond repute f3lix has a reputation beyond repute f3lix has a reputation beyond repute f3lix has a reputation beyond repute f3lix has a reputation beyond repute f3lix has a reputation beyond repute f3lix has a reputation beyond repute

For Shameful Transgressions
Default

Cliffs on what you're referring to, Repug?
f3lix is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-10-2014, 07:19 AM   #1461 (permalink)
Lost in Hilbert Spice
 
Dent's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounded by knaves and fools
Posts: 3,460
Internets: 174266
Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde View Post
Desire is the cause of all suffering.
Please don't call me a DP cocksucker, this clip addresses some of the divide between traditional Buddhism and the neo-Buddhism that I favour.
Specifically the first two minutes and thirty seconds tackle the "desire = suffering" thing.


Dent is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-10-2014, 02:13 PM   #1462 (permalink)
Spice Master
 
Mr. Blonde's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I started watching that night was but was hopped up on coffee and desperately trying to stay awake at the same time. I will say that, while I know you have studied David Pearce much more than me, even in the first couple minutes I have noticed some fundamental misunderstandings of how he perceieves Buddhism and the buddhist ideals.

I'll elaborate more on this later, but the reasons most buddhists want to eliminate desire, in my opinion, is that those who seriously and independently take up the pursuit of discovering the meaning behind suffering, disease, and death, USUALLY are spurred by some sort of catastrophic loss in their lives that they cannot go on living with without having some sort of support --- some reason to not kill themselves.

This sounds gritty but I believe it to be the main basis for religions everywhere -- whether it's just believing in a positive story of the afterlife, or a much deeper seeking for esoteric, hidden truths of the world for a greater understanding, people who desire do not desire still DO THINGS --- I would say Indian Yogis are more what he is describing, as I mentioned elsewhere, wish their consciousness to be identified with something beyond human consciousness so they can no longer feel "imprisoned by flesh". For those who have suffered greatly, this may be the best choice. Anything is better than suicide.

But buddists have a LONG history of social justice and community activism -- the entire goal of buddhism is global, progressive, self-transformation into fully conscious, ethical, loving and compassionate beings. I believe this is the natural state of the human animal, it's just buried under tens of thousands of years of Ape Games that cause anger, jealousy, war, greed, etc.

I'll explain more later, but it truly disappoints me he seems to paint this "non-desire" in such a negative light. It's not that buddhists don't desire --- in fact they accept that they will be desiring for the rest of their lives. It is the human condition to desire (many monks and teachers in books talk of this). It is more the acceptance that you will always desire, as a human being (ape-descendent), because that's just part of you are. And there's nothing you can really do about it, except deny yourself (in a loving way) when you find yourself desiring.

It's honestly much more about personally evaluating (through extended meditation) how many our our own personal desires are conditioned and unnecessary, and over time, one naturally sees these and corrects them, leaving much more room open for desires to be "reformatted" to constructive, often social pursuits.

It's more about desiring not pleasure and avoiding pain, as we have been conditioned as children, but radically accepting (preferably with a friendly overtone) EVERYTHING that is happening right now, ,whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, because by the time a person gets upset about it it, it has already happened. To fight against this, despite most of us doing it our entire lives, is absolutely retarded.

Why get angry at the person who cut you off in traffic? It's only going to make you angry and hurt you and result in impotence. These things happen in worlds with traffic.

Cut your finger making food? It's already happened. Don't be dramatic about it, you will heal and be fine, plus these things happen all the time. Accept it, patch it up, and move on.


If ANYTHING, buddhism is about action, particularly social action, because the meditation training involved in buddhism makes one acutely aware of both how little time we have to waste (constantly being present = constantly staying busy ---- what else is there to do?), as well as the suffering around us at all times. The bodhisattva ideal is one that inspires me greatly, if not for the "enlightenment" of others, whatever that means, then for the decreasing of suffering of others.

Getting out of our own heads opens our eyes to a world of suffering that needs our help. I don't have a lot of personal goals for my life --- but if I have one that's keeping me from "ENDING IT ALL IN A BLAZE OF GLORY", it is that there is still much, much suffering to be alleviated.

aka Buddhists don't get "blissed out" and become desireless zombies. They just stop desiring for personal gain and desire to help others instead.


But then again, these are all my personal interpretations of Buddhism. Ultimately, buddhism is just sitting down on a zafu pillow or some others pillows, counting your breaths, and when you get distracted, come back to the breaths. Thats it. That is the core of the Buddha's teaching. Everything else comes from your own analysis of your brain.

I'll expound further later.


EDIT: I didn't finish the video yet so allow me some time to watch thoroughly and self- correct any assumptions I may have made.

Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.

― Terence McKenna

Last edited by Mr. Blonde; 08-10-2014 at 02:40 PM.
Mr. Blonde is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-10-2014, 08:12 PM   #1463 (permalink)
Spice Master
 
Mr. Blonde's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Okay, I got about 4 minutes in. Going to finish the rest soon. He covers a LOT in a short amount of time.

Disclaimer: I respect his mind greatly and clearly he's a theoretical genius. But I do think he has some...shall I say...superficial generalizations about Eastern thought. Without seriously dedicating hundreds of hours to studying these ancient texts, hours meditating, and, in some cases, fucking with shamanic drugs, it is very difficult to fully understand these things.


Quote:
It is worth noting that the very happiest people will also tend to have the strongest desires and be the most motivated....That's...the people who have fewest desires and the least intense desires, in many cases are the depressives.
As someone who has personally struggled with chronic, suicidal depression for years, and have always consistently tried to heal myself of this tendency, this seems like a very wild and broad statement based on nothing but personal speculation --- worse yet, by somebody who doesn't fully understand depression from a psychological perspective.

Most of the people I know who constantly "want" (aka desire) to achieve more for themselves, are some of the most anxious, borderline psychotic people I know. Many of them are doing what they feel pressured to do by society, parents, friends, etc. A

The thing about desire isn't that it's "bad" in any way. I look at it mathematically. Look at how many variables there are, social, psychic, political, even fucking traffic signals. It's impossible to "want" (aka plan something in the future) and NOT experience stress, because the "unknowns" and the "my plans aren't working" thoughts plague you all the time. This creates psychological suffering. The fact is, and I learned this vividly last year, no matter how much you try, plan, or want, you, a simple human being, cannot possibly control all the variables. To even imagine you could is madness, yet, so many of us live our lives like that daily.

Consider the alternative: if one has conditioned themselves to focus on the constant 'now's, and thus desire less for the future, what does one have to be depressed about? If you don't expect anything, isn't everything kind of a pleasant surprise? This is a simplification, and again, may only be an available experience to those who have pretty much lost everything --- so are merely happy to be alive, and have shelter, and food on their table.ll

Do I want more in my life than that? Of course, I'm human, I still have desire. But it's not happening now, and I am working towards those goals. It's no worry about it.

Quote:
If someone is a melancholic depressive, in many cases meditation training will make the melancholic depressive worse.
I would really like to see some sourcing on this -- I've never heard anything like this, and know a lot about both meditation and depression.

Again, I know he is a philosopher and welcome to speculation, but based on my own personal experience, as well as more and more scientific evidence suggesting that meditation helps to alleviate (not a panacea) depression. I have become more aware of many things, suffering included, and sometimes it can affect me emotionally much more than others. But the continued training in meditation helps to separate myself from this hyper-empathy and divert it into compassion and understanding. I would say meditation is primarily "hardening" yourself to take suffering with much less ease, rather than completely eliminating it (overcoming is the preferred word.)

For Depression Treatment, Meditation Might Rival Medication - Forbes

Mindfulness Meditation Can Help Relieve Anxiety And Depression : Shots - Health News : NPR

I am predispositioned to "melancholic depression" and while meditation has by no means "cured" me of it, nor has do I expect it to, it at least helps me recognize the fact that I do suffer from those mental moods and it is my responsibility (not anyone else's) to do what is necessary to alleviate those symptoms.

---

Interesting thoughts on High-tech Jainism. The future is definitely going to be weird man. I want to take a moment to quote from that Joseph Campbell book again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Campbell
Thus early societies learned that "the essene of life is that it lives by killing and eating; that's the great mysery that the myths have to deal with."
IMO, this could sum up the entire question of, at least human existence. The more you intellectually examine it, the more you see that reality (or at least life on Earth), simply exists by suffering.

Maybe we can change that in the future. But remember, it's not just physical suffering. Mental illness (the closest thing to Hell there is) is still a HUGE hurdle that many people still won't recognize as an equal illness to say, heart or kidney disease. This will be a huge issue in the future I believe.


-----INTERMISSION------ (coffee, music, textin bishes) -- brb

Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.

― Terence McKenna

Last edited by Mr. Blonde; 08-11-2014 at 09:21 AM.
Mr. Blonde is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-11-2014, 07:17 AM   #1464 (permalink)
Spice Master
 
Mr. Blonde's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Finishing watching now. Will update soon.

I liked this quote a lot:

Quote:
I just think unfortunately one has to accept that "full-blown paradise engineering" is unlikely in one's own lifetime, but it is our responsibility to lay the preconditions for a future in which there is no involuntary suffering."
Agreed. If there is any meaning at all to life and "going on" (and this is based on reading the works of great men throughout history who came to the same conclusion), it is doing our best to make it a more fair, improved world for all individual beings. Our generation is one of the luckiest because until now, it really has been everyone doing the best they can, under severe technological limits. With tech on our side, the fact that we can even imagine the Earth being a paradise, a technologically-infused Gaia, is pretty spectacular.

I didn't really follow/care about the masochism thing. Seems like reaching from his opposition. If anything I'd see them as just genetic outliers -- we all enjoy suffering to a degree, again, if a person somehow gets pleasure from suffering, it could range from a deep psychological problem to just being a kinky person.

---

In-Vitro meat: absolutely agree, if tested and healthy for human consumption, I have been an advocate for years.

I almost hate to say it, because of how much humans love meat and get rather defensive towards those who don't, but the fact that we kill living beings, life, beings with brains, eyes, emotions, etc. for food will eventually come to a halt as soon as we we have the technological means and the worldwide education to support such a system, however idealistic it may sound. Even at this point in human history I kinda like we are still a collective Jabba the fucking Hutt.


-------------

I'd like to hear some more of your qualms with traditional buddhism vs. modern buddhism. I simply don't see as much opposition (even if friendly disagrements) between the two. I was going to quote Buddha here, but instead found this site: Fake Buddha Quotes | "Nope, I didn't say that." ? The Buddha, which is pretty funny and tries to correct all the pseudo-spiritual "feel good and not think about shit too much" quotes attributed to Buddha on the internet.

I will admit, without having an understanding of Sanskrit or other Asian languages, it is difficult to pin down the meaning of some of the texts. Many different interpretations as always.

Which brings me to my next point of discussion:

In traditional Buddhism, true Zen (what I personally believe to be the true heart of Buddhism, having studied the many different sects and branches (and all the drama in between...which is exactly what I'm moving away from) and just seeing the character of the various "Zen Masters" throughout history). If one is truly interested in understanding Buddhism, truly, from an academic suggestion, no matter how long it takes, you will eventually settle on Zen. It appears to be a sociological magnet to those dedicated to (direct experiential) truth, understanding, love, and self-discipline.

My favorite koan/story of a Zen master is Bodhidharma, a rather ugly, short, squat fellow, who brought Zen from India to China, where it evolved into Ch'an Buddhism:

Quote:
It is said that when Bodhidharma arrived in China he met with the emperor, who, having sponsored the construction of a great many Buddhist monasteries and temples and patronized the teachers of the various Buddhist sects, assumed that he would gain much merit in the form of a happy and prosperous reign and an auspicious rebirth. But according to legend their dialog went as follows:
Emperor Wu: "I have built many temples, copied innumerable Sutras and ordained many monks since becoming Emperor. Therefore, I ask you what is my merit?"

Bodhidharma: "None whatsoever!"

Emperor Wu: "What then is the most important principle of Buddhism?"

Bodhidharma: "Vast emptiness. Nothing sacred."

Emperor: "Who is this that stands before me?"

Bodhidharma:"I don't know."
When the emperor did not understand, Bodhidharma crossed the river to Shaolin, where he meditated in a cave for nine years.

The reason why, I believe this is the most efficient, basic, and indeed, Buddha-endorsed form of meditation, is that ALL YOU (and I mean any human being) HAVE TO DO is dedicate time to sitting. Sitting in zazen, like this:


, and do, basically nothing. On the surface. You become conscious of your breaths -- IN, OUT, IN, OUT, etc. until your session is over. Your brain will naturally get distracted because that is what it has evolved to do to survive in primitive, dangerous environments. When you get distracted, and notice you are thinking about some stupid bullshit (and it almost always is), you acknowledge the thought like you would an annoying child in a classroom, mentally say "okay, I"ll address you later, sit down, bitch", and gently return to your breathing.

That's it. Over and over and over again, that's all Buddhism is to me. My experience has been that it has improved my thought and corrected a lot of my confused, delusional thinking that had been conditioned as my reality (as a single, subjective point of experience throughout my life). I enjoy things more. I don't worry as much. When I do worry, I just come back to my breath and realize I'm fine.

The most attractive thing about Buddhism is that it gives you a practice, a regimine, a way to live your life to EXPERIMENT with rather than something vague like, "ya just gotta have faith", etc. It is a practice to help your brain function better.

There's nothing mystical or religious to this, it's just a mental practice that works. I hit a wall where intellectual contemplation and analysis no longer satisfied my will to live, also, I've pretty much never experienced happiness until last year, and I want more of that. I wanted to make changes and meditation has helped me GREATLY increased my focus, which has always been my prime problem throughout life. And with focus comes self-discipline, and with discipline comes paradoxically, self-control and freedom.

But for goodness' sake, don't believe me, try it for yourself (I'm not talking to you Dent, I'm talking to anyone reading).

It takes willpower (the hardest to overcome -- sitting and doing "nothing" every day for months) dedication, and above all -- earnest intent to improve, and not get frustrated with yourself. Buddha was very explicit on this point, and would have laughed and laughed and laughed had he seen so much iconography based around him for simply explaining something so basic (focus on your breath). But he was, historically, the first to discover this and explain it to so many people --- which, by the way, he certainly did not have to. He could have happily and blissfully lived in the woods forever, but he didn't. He came back to teach.

---

Neuroplasticity is real, and I can think of no better current method than meditation to change one's brain patterns. Look at all these connections just waiting to be rearranged!



I enjoy discussing philosophy because, let's be honest, none of us know shit froom shinola. Meditation isn't philosophy (despite having deep, ancient philosophical routes that are necessary to get into in order to meditate.) Plus once one has intensely Eastern philosophy enougThat h, you reach a wall where you don't really [i]have a need for philosophy[i/], at all, because you find yourself caring less about the "why's" and enjoying so much. It doesn't mean the "why's" aren't important. It just helps to put into perspective that human beings have been asking for quite some time.

That being said, I'll come back to philsophy throughtout my life, as reminders it is a great pasttime, as long as we do not get too attached to any particular idea. That being said, I'm more than open to hearing any questions or points against traditional buddhism (hereafter referred to as "T-buddy" and "N-buddy")



Also, Repug, would love to hear your thoughts on some of this. David Pearce is a very interesting fellow, I find his stream of consciousness speculation and ad-hoc additions (based on hundreds of hours of thinking, of course) a very interesting way to, quite literally armchair philosophize.

Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.

― Terence McKenna

Last edited by Mr. Blonde; 08-11-2014 at 10:19 AM.
Mr. Blonde is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-11-2014, 09:22 AM   #1465 (permalink)
Spice Master
 
Mr. Blonde's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I added some to that first post. Repug, would love to hear you chime in when you get some time. Dent and I went off-topic a bit, and I consider you the moderator.

Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.

― Terence McKenna

Last edited by Mr. Blonde; 08-11-2014 at 10:18 AM.
Mr. Blonde is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-20-2014, 01:57 PM   #1466 (permalink)
Almost there...
 
Repugnant Abomination's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,979
Internets: 161638
Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Not sure what you're referring too -- please clarify.

I'd like to post something I've been thinking regarding these matters of epistemology. Now that we've firmly established empiricism and rationalism I'd like to offer a definition of God and then, using our epistemological tools, posit a conjecture. This will admittedly be rudimentary at first, not least of all because I lack the capacity to comprehend or even fully articulate my thoughts on such a complex subject. But here goes.

God: creator of the universe. Omnipotent. Omnipresent.

God: Created the universe, therefore must, at least when he created it, exist outside of it.

God: Exists outside of the universe, meaning outside of space and time.

Science utilizes empiricism to test and falsifying the natural world, i.e. that which is contained within the universe. That which exists outside of the natural world is beyond the scope of science and therefore doesn't fall within the parameters of science. That doesn't mean irrelevant though. Abstract thought also exists outside of the scope of science, like the idea of morality. Mathematics also comes to mind. These are examples of a priori knowledge, which is independent of sensory experience.

The position as it stands right now: God created the universe. God had to exist outside of the universe to create it. The existence of God cannot be confirmed by science and the empirical method if he exists outside of his creation (i.e. space and time).

That position, thus far, is rational. Does anyone disagree? Let's take it a step further...

God is omnipresent because he exists outside of space and time, and thus can see the whole of space and time at all times. God is omnipotent, and thus can inject himself into space and time at any point. Being omnipotent he could perform miracles, which are defined as occurrences that do not or cannot be explained by nature (i.e. goes against the laws of physics). These miracles can never be verified or falsified because they represent a momentary suspension of the laws of nature and therefore cannot be replicated.

Existing outside of space and time, we can never know God scientifically. We can come up with rational theories on his existence, but this is emotionally (and some argue) intellectually unsatisfying.

If we can accept the above then faith in the existence of God can be considered reasonable. In fact faith would be required.

Apologies if that was convoluted. I know that the definition of God I'm using is an example of Dualism and monotheism, which might not conform to other views, like Pantheism. But humor me. Rather than dispute my definition, accept it and try to pick apart my conclusion. It's something I've been thinking a lot about, and struggling with. Thanks in advance.
Repugnant Abomination is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-20-2014, 05:09 PM   #1467 (permalink)
Spice Master
 
Mr. Blonde's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Aldous Huxley - The Perennial Philosophy

Have you read this?

Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.

― Terence McKenna
Mr. Blonde is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-20-2014, 05:29 PM   #1468 (permalink)
Almost there...
 
Repugnant Abomination's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,979
Internets: 161638
Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I have not. Big Huxley fan though, and it sounds interesting so I'll check it out!

No link responses though, please. I'd like to hear what you have to say about my above post.
Repugnant Abomination is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-20-2014, 05:29 PM   #1469 (permalink)
Almost there...
 
Repugnant Abomination's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,979
Internets: 161638
Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Double post.
Repugnant Abomination is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-21-2014, 12:11 AM   #1470 (permalink)
Spice Master
 
Mr. Blonde's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute
Default

double posting sucks man

Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.

― Terence McKenna
Mr. Blonde is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-21-2014, 12:11 AM   #1471 (permalink)
Spice Master
 
Mr. Blonde's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute
Default

K, lol.

Sorry friend, I have too many guilt issues with spending a lot of time responding to deep armchair philosophical points when I barely have enough money to eat (ironically enough, now that I type it.) Just trying to focus on job search lately so not trying to ignore on purpose.

Should have at least included an explanation. That book IS what I have to say about your post.

I'm not going to participate in trying to define God, until we at least address that it's a very popular question and well-studied beyond your 5x7 Nubblies post.


Huxley wrote a lot of amazing fiction but also some interesting nonfiction, the most famous being The Doors of Perception That book I posted about the "Perennial" philosophy, which is the "Always been since human history" philosophy, the one that, despite all the intellectual arguments and advances and rationalism etc. --- this is his compiled comparative religious experiences (as a reporter, as a scientist, like William James), all having to do with "Spirit", "The One", "The Universe", "Atman", or, my least favorite term, God.

This is why I thought you may find it interesting. By reading it, you will come to a greater understanding of all the different definitions of "Spirit" by a bona-fide literary genius, and thus develop a stronger foundation of ideas (the paths of which have been laid down for you) for you to build your own ideas on. I'm not finished with it yet, either.


Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.

― Terence McKenna

Last edited by Mr. Blonde; 08-21-2014 at 12:21 AM.
Mr. Blonde is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-21-2014, 12:55 PM   #1472 (permalink)
Spice Master
 
Mr. Blonde's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Who the fuck am I kidding, I'm not doing anything this morning.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination View Post
Not sure what you're referring too -- please clarify.
Just wanted you more active here. You seem to really want to get to the bottom of some things and I'm online a lot. Dent also seems ready to discuss seriously (pending he remembers that he's way ahead of us in contemporary consciousness research), and 3 is all we need for a decent intellectual discussion (although all are welcome)


Quote:
I'd like to post something I've been thinking regarding these matters of epistemology. Now that we've firmly established empiricism and rationalism I'd like to offer a definition of God and then, using our epistemological tools, posit a conjecture. This will admittedly be rudimentary at first, not least of all because I lack the capacity to comprehend or even fully articulate my thoughts on such a complex subject. But here goes.
Thank you, Data.


--------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination View Post

God: creator of the universe. Omnipotent. Omnipresent.

God: Created the universe, therefore must, at least when he created it, exist outside of it.

God: Exists outside of the universe, meaning outside of space and time.
Metaphysics is so much more complex than this, which I'm sure you realize, but for the time being. I will partly agree. Allow me to post my similar definitions, from more of an Eastern Spice perspective --- for example, God would clearly not be a "he". These things bother me, a lot, and have been one of my biggest problems with Western theology; the (probably completely normal and unavoidable) "person"-ification of God.


Blonde's Response to Repug's Definitions:


1. The Universe: All that there is empirically available for us to survey through our five organic human senses (how many biological senses are possible?) combined with the highly-sensitive, god-like tools we have invented to investigate the physical universe further.

2. The Universe (if conscious): Brahman in the East: Ineffable, A not-thing, but all things, this is why it is a no-thing. From this no-thing springs all things. Because it is the prime thing, pure, aware, consciousness, and thus the source of all things (while not necessarily as being as "intellectual" as a human --- if you must conceptualize "It", which is impossible with language, try to think of it as an unconscious and incomprehensible but perfect mathematical algorithm in hyperspace or something), it contains several inherent qualities of Being:
✺ The term "Creator" is tricky because it still implies (naturally) a human-based consciousness, plotting away at some device for some purpose. I would refer to this field of ineffable Being, simply put, ultimate potential/creation. It does not mean creation with a purpose, other than just to do it because it wants to. That is, if it is capable of "wanting", which I'm not sure it is. Humans are though, so I like creating things simply because I want to. This is the joy of, at least human, creation, for me.

✺ So, yes, this Being would be all things that have ever or will come into existence, as this "field of consciousness" is the backdrop of which material reality exists within inside of. Think of the Holodeck, or that scene in the matrix.


Allegorically, the "white, vast, silent nothingness" which our two beings spring into spontaneously, as well as the vast and cool weaponry, would be what we would call "Brahman" in this situation. It both provides the environment for conscious beings to exist in, as well as provides whatever these conscious beings need, one way or another.

It is indescribable and ineffable because it is, ultimately, empty, nothing. It is everything so it can't be compared to anything except itself, which is impossible. Even as I type these words, I know it's nonsense, and that's the mystery. How can you describe something without using relativity?
Quote:
What do you mean, "White"?

Well, it's like "Black".

What's "Black"?

Well, it's the opposite of White.

What does opposite mean?

Well, for relative reality to exist, one "thing" must RELATE (RELATivity) to another thing.....
This is the mystery behind relative and absolute realities, and I believe that much of Einstein's work may have accidentally validated Taoism, lol, but that's just a personal hunch. Also, recognizing the fact that you live in a relative reality, doesn't that mean that there must, obviously, also be an Absolute reality?

✺ "Omnipotent" not out of any sort of superiority complex, as the Christian and Catholic traditions would have you believe, but simply because that's how the system within which we reside must work, otherwise it would not BE.

✺ I haven't quite figured out the "Omnipresent" thing, particularly with my personal experiences with meditation and training my own consciousness to stay focused in the present moment. "Omnipresent" simply because it IS, NOW, the first, whatever "it" is, "it" is what "all" "came from" and "exists within", so Omnipotent isn't really an argument...these would be Natural qualities of the field, not some sort of "power" to be used with human intent, like constantly judging the actions of individual human beings. So, I agree with you, but under significantly different language. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

3. The Universe/Brahman: Being both all things inside the universe, (and thus, without), yet clearly (to some), Brahman affects us all in the physical universe. So yes, I agree that God would have to exist outside of the universe....and inside the universe at the same time.

Obviously, this is nearly impossible to comprehend, and if you can comprehend it, you usually don't feel very comfortable talking about it.


Quote:
Science utilizes empiricism to test and falsifying the natural world, i.e. that which is contained within the universe. That which exists outside of the natural world is beyond the scope of science and therefore doesn't fall within the parameters of science. That doesn't mean irrelevant though. Abstract thought also exists outside of the scope of science, like the idea of morality. Mathematics also comes to mind. These are examples of a priori knowledge, which is independent of sensory experience.
I have a difficult time understanding a priori knowledge, could you provide some more examples? I agree it exists, if nothing else because of things like instinct, but have a hard time processing it academically. The only reason morality exists is because consciousness and self-awareness, as well as the awareness of the "other" exists. Deeply within us, it resonates that we are dealing with other conscious beings in a world of otherwise inanimate matter. This is from where morality springs --- a recognition, even just a glimmer, that the being that your personal morality affects, you would not want done to you. Morality should always be discussed, but as a practice, I believe it should be deeply personalized, and constantly consciously embodied, on a very personal level. So it's going to be hard to get me to discuss morality. I wish to be moral and ethical, so I will be. That's all I'm concerned with.

RE: The Natural World: I view everything that is or ever will be as Natural. Metaphysics is Natural; the concept of god is (clearly) Natural, as it arises out of so many human beings. Science currently at this point in history does not have the mechanical instruments to penetrate and examine "outside of reality" --- if that is possible --- but if there are multiverses and wormholes, those are about the best examples I can think of. It's just a matter of "time", heh.

I also believe that psychedelic drug usage is the next necessary hurdle for humanity to come to terms with, scientifically. There are many intelligent and honest people very interested in truth, enough to ignore the massive the social judgment and stigma that comes from ignorance about psychedelic drugs. I believe these chemicals are necessary to become part of our society in order to create the kind of ideas and concepts for humanity to survive further into the technological age. Don't worry, there are many technoshamans looking out for you



Repugnant Abomination: The position as it stands right now:

Quote:
God created the universe. God had to exist outside of the universe to create it. The existence of God cannot be confirmed by science and the empirical method if he exists outside of his creation (i.e. space and time).

That position, thus far, is rational. Does anyone disagree?



Yes, I disagree.

Are you implying that the existence of God can only be confirmed through rational thought, aka "must-be's"? (forgive the ad-hoc term, It seemed to make sense). If this is the case, while you may be technically (rationally) correct, I feel like this is still jus.t a glimpse into how much further this goes. I would only ask that you use Rationalism not as your prime tool, but as part of a tool-kit for understanding reality. Rationalism is a necessary tool, but not, I fear, The Answer.

I would request that you read and address what I wrote here before I can agree with this statement, because I believe that there is much that you perhaps haven't been introduced to (forgive the assumption), and are still very much viewing the God question from a very limited perspective (i.e. Christian backdrop...lots of "hims"). I also disagree that the existence of God is only possible by, if I'm interpreting this correctly... (and please again, correct me if I'm wrong).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Repug
1. The Universe exists
2. How do that?
3. Something we will call God, and refer to as a him, must have made it from the outside
4. Therefore, God exists.
I wouldn't say this is irrational, but it is certainly very simplistic, unless all you're going for right now is the existence of a God, and before we even get close to that, we need to step-by-step examine all the different cultural and human definitions of God throughout history, not just what two white boys in 21st century America think.

And that could take some time, you know?


Quote:
Let's take it a step further...

God is omnipresent because he exists outside of space and time, and thus can see the whole of space and time at all times. God is omnipotent, and thus can inject himself into space and time at any point. Being omnipotent he could perform miracles, which are defined as occurrences that do not or cannot be explained by nature (i.e. goes against the laws of physics). These miracles can never be verified or falsified because they represent a momentary suspension of the laws of nature and therefore cannot be replicated.

Existing outside of space and time, we can never know God scientifically. We can come up with rational theories on his existence, but this is emotionally (and some argue) intellectually unsatisfying.
Very nice description of a likely possibility!!! Studying quantum physics actually lines up very well (albeit allegorically) from concepts of the east. For example the vaccuum of space ("nothing"), as some of you may know, actually has infinite energy inside of it with particles jumping in and out of existence (whatever the fuck that means) all the time. So yeah man, I mean, these are very similar concepts, but humanity has a long way to go.

But yes, it is possible that: if a God (or gods) existed, that they could do such things. Anything is possible, and there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt...


Quote:
If we can accept the above then faith in the existence of God can be considered reasonable. In fact faith would be required.
It is possible to replace what many people call "faith" with the long, steady practice of Zen meditation (sitting on a pillow and counting your breaths), in my personal experience. But I understand what you mean. Whatever Faith is, it means different things to different people, and some people use it in a very dumb way. I don't think that's what you're doing, but what I'm saying is I think we're on the same page.

I have faith in my existence, because I am intimately aware that I exist, in so much complexity, when I so easily could not have. That is what meditation has taught me.


Quote:
Apologies if that was convoluted. I know that the definition of God I'm using is an example of Dualism and monotheism, which might not conform to other views, like Pantheism. But humor me. Rather than dispute my definition, accept it and try to pick apart my conclusion. It's something I've been thinking a lot about, and struggling with. Thanks in advance.

Good post man, hope some of my points made sense in relation to yours. For me, personally, the blend of Zen and Taoism (including an emphasis of extended time spent in Nature and a heavy prescription of Alan Watts lectures), have given me a quite relaxing worldview of existence. Smoking weed helps me take shit less seriously than I've been led to believe life needs to be, because hey, we're all gonna die.

The Golden Rule (and trying really hard to smile and have more fun in life) is all there is for me right now.




************************************************** *************************************

Came up with this during the post:



The Universe: The problem that just arose to me is that we do not know that "the Universe" is all that there is. However, if there are multiple, perhaps infinite universes, which evidence exists there may be, and if they are all connected (which may not be the case), but if they ARE all connected, then that means our term for "Universe" is simply misclassfied.

e.g., we may have to reclassify the universe as something like "Galaxy Collection" as part of an even GREATER Universe than we are aware of. This seems likely with infinite regression, and, well, infinity in general. Universe means "One-song", literally. If multiple-universe-theory appears to eventually prove true, we will have to change the name of what we call our Universe.

Also, in regard to consciousness, does that mean there is a separate God for every galaxy? Every Universe? Why not, look how many human beings they are, and we are clearly conscious multiplicities.



Just food for thought.

Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.

― Terence McKenna

Last edited by Mr. Blonde; 08-21-2014 at 10:54 PM.
Mr. Blonde is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-21-2014, 04:12 PM   #1473 (permalink)
Almost there...
 
Repugnant Abomination's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,979
Internets: 161638
Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute Repugnant Abomination has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Thank you, Mr Blonde. That was exactly the kind of thought-provoking, challenging response I was hoping for that will force me to look deeper and from different angles. It is a lot to process and I need to organize your points and my response in a logical way before responding. I'll shoot for tonight.

One thing though, because it bothered me and obviously bothers you. Referring to God as a him has more to do with laziness of language than anything else. In this case I don't even mean it as a gender neutral pronoun, but more of a reference point. I can use "it" if that helps.
Repugnant Abomination is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-21-2014, 04:35 PM   #1474 (permalink)
Lost in Hilbert Spice
 
Dent's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounded by knaves and fools
Posts: 3,460
Internets: 174266
Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute Dent has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde View Post
I have a difficult time understanding a priori knowledge, could you provide some more examples? I agree it exists, if nothing else because of things like instinct, but have a hard time processing it academically
Konrad Lorenz pointed out that Kant’s a-priori are evolutionary a-posteriori. “we didn’t learn it, but our ancestors did”

“Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic but praise-worthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind.”
―Willard Van Orman Quine
Dent is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-21-2014, 05:19 PM   #1475 (permalink)
Spice Master
 
Mr. Blonde's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute Mr. Blonde has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dent View Post
Konrad Lorenz pointed out that Kant’s a-priori are evolutionary a-posteriori. “we didn’t learn it, but our ancestors did”
Does a-priori knowledge (to us, hardwired genetically) exclude the possibility of "being developed"? Is it still a-priori?

Quote:
“Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic but praise-worthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind.”
―Willard Van Orman Quine
Cool quote. I think I get it. Have you seen this American comedy? If not, you DEFINITELY should.


Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.

― Terence McKenna
Mr. Blonde is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

« ...Gaz? | - »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright © 2002-∞ - Nubblies.net