You know, maybe a better analogy would be the Buddhist example of the table in another room. If you’re not in the room, does the table still exist?
Right, and I regularly emphasize that it is my personal choice to call the undivided entirety that is Reality-as-it-actually-is God. I also always emphasize that it is completely optional that I do so. Since ultimately it is a moot point.
(it would be nice if what I just said could get some traction in future exchanges)
You’re evangelism is a lost cause. I don’t think it will get you the traction you hope it would- not with this crowd at least.
Koans serve by short circuiting logic if the moment is ripe.
I’m coming back to it after a 9 year hiatus (on this site). This practice of working both sides of the atheist/theist fence is as much for me as for anyone who might be ready for it.
There are also a couple of other forums and individuals I really want to go learn from. But I got waylaid dealing with some very ungenerous ears right out of the gate. Thanks for the reminder.
[quote=“brmckay1, post:378, topic:2865”]
Since I mention some variant of Entirety, Reality, absolute Infinitude, undivided Whole, etc. in every comment. Where exactly is the confusion coming from?
The Burali-Forti paradox[edit]
Main article: Burali-Forti paradox
The idea that the collection of all ordinal numbers cannot logically exist seems paradoxical to many. This is related to Cesare Burali-Forti’s “paradox” which states that there can be no greatest ordinal number. All of these problems can be traced back to the idea that, for every property that can be logically defined, there exists a set of all objects that have that property. However, as in Cantor’s argument (above), this idea leads to difficulties.
More generally, as noted by A. W. Moore, **
- there can be no end to the process of set formation, and thus no such thing as the totality of all sets, or the set hierarchy. Any such totality would itself have to be a set, thus lying somewhere within the hierarchy and thus failing to contain every set.
Is Reality ultimately the context of the undivided Whole or not? (apriori means there can be no question about it, so this is rhetorical)
Well, “a priori” doesn’t exactly mean “unquestionable”.
a priori, adjective
adjective: apriori
- relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience.
“a priori assumptions about human nature”Similar: theoretical, deduced, deductive, inferred, scientific, postulated
IOW, this is far from “unquestionable”.
So, it can be argued this is an a priori “ fixation and expectation ” on your part, not the listener.
Sorry, I didn’t read that. I thought we had decided it was useless.
What are implying? And anyway, why are you unable to do the work yourself?
Did we? You are making an awful lot of assumptions my friend. The purpose of this forum is to address inquiries and/or declarations posed and/or argued by readers to see if a consensus agreement as to “meaning” can be achieved.
“It is only when we agree on our controlled hallucinations that we call it reality” (Seth).
Like none of us have ever been religious? I was religious and then I started questioning it. Like Dan Barker, I lost “Faith in Faith”, so I’ve been on both sides of the fence. I was religious and now I’m not. I did believe and now I don’t. I think there are several here like that. We’ve been there, done that. Some of us don’t want to do it again, because some of us experienced Religious Trauma Syndrome (RTS) and some just don’t want to irrationally discuss religion. All of us do not want to be evangelized to and rather slam the door in the face of evangelists.
I’m stating quite clearly that you are making up terms, as if they are dictionary definitions or something, then claiming we should know them.
As if “The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.” Doesn’t imply interpretation is required.
Exactly. Interpretation is NOT required, because if you can name, then that’s not it.
Please don’t project your experience on to me though. Right?
I am not evangelizing a religion, having grounded my inquiry of fifty plus years on the infinitude of Reality and paying attention. This is me practicing my version of critical thinking,
Accommodating my conditioning and instinctual spirituality I understand God as Reality (as-it-actually-is). I also don’t need to use the term “God” to say what I need to say, but I also don’t need not to. It being for my personal consumption. This is probably the most important point.
Advaita Vedanta, Zen, Yoga, Tao, the teachings of Buddha, along with passion for Nature, playing music, and a layman’s interest in science, is my mathematics and my art. You have your own.
I want to respect you. But when you project a false narrative onto what I’ve said. I will point it out.
Relativity and the Absolute…Reason and Intuition… In Truth there is only the eternity of Now, but this is a practice. The journey is the thing.
You do your thing.
Is Reality only a bunch of things? or simultaneously, without contradiction the undivided Whole?
A simple question.
Best I can tell I’m sticking to English. If the art of my delivery fails, well at least I tried.
There is also the possibility that I’m dealing with politicians. That would have to be factored in.
I’m not understanding your spin on that.
The way I see it, the Universe is the Wholeness, a pattern with mathematical properties. No magic, no mystery . Just unobservable in its entirety due to its size that exceeds our ability to observe.
But we do have observed knowledge of the beginning and that does not suggest an Intelligent Designer.
Isn’t unobservable part of the definition of mystery. We see something, knowing it came from somewhere, but where and how? That’s the mystery.
Since you asked a clarifying question, I’ll answer, rather than just say that I used English.
You brought up the Tao, but you didn’t say anything about how those first stanzas addressed the paradox. And you have been vague on what the paradox is. You asked a question about atheists understanding that gods are abstractions, but I don’t see that as a paradox. I think that’s the “paradox” you are referring to.
Then you seemed annoyed that we didn’t get that you choose different words for God in #382.
You asked what I was implying, when I pointed out that the words you choose are your own. They may be poetic, they might combine some words used by philosophers and theologians of the past, but they don’t point to something defined or with any existing discussion. For instance, if you had said “Descartes ‘I am’” I would know exactly what you meant. But “absolute infinitude” is no more defined than, “you know, life, the universe, everything” (That’s a Douglas Adams reference if you’re not familiar).
So, I picked a phrase from the Tao, something I have read, and studied. My church read from it every Sunday. To me, that phrase says that there are things that can’t be named, or maybe there is ‘something’, something eternal, beyond our vision, beyond our ability to define. That’s how I interpret it, but if I’m discussing it, I would guess that anyone else in the room would have something else to say about it. The joy of reading words like that with others is in the discovery of what each of us gets from them.
Does that help?
And you’re not projecting yours as you try to get us to see your thinking and views?
Many of us have done that already.
I’m not surprised. Maybe you should try going to a Gnostic forum. You may have better luck.
And no one else can. I get it- it’s your POV and only your POV, nobody else’s and nobody can bring up any other religion or gods, except you. You know what that is? Evangelism. That’s why you’re not having much luck on the forums you go to. You want it one sided, which does not work. That said though, I think you’d be better off at a Gnostic forum, especially if you get rid of the one-sidedness of posts.
Yes, you are and I just showed the examples of that.
Yes, that is religious brainwashing. Anytime you have “conditioning” it’s brainwashing.
Again, it’s for your own personal gain and one-sided. You aren’t accepting anyone else’s views on the matter or allowing for comprehension of your own views, which makes it a religion that you are proselytizing. If we don’t get it, we aren’t trying, therefore we aren’t ready… blah, blah, blah, then that’s evangelizing.
Yes, evangelizing.
It is you presenting a false narrative. Either that or you are fooling yourself thinking you aren’t attempting to convert people to your POV when you don’t allow for their views.
Yes, I was when I brought up Buddhism after you mentioned Taoism. There is nothing wrong with sharing another view or views. Please, get over yourself, because you are no sage.
1 Like
Again, that sounds like evangelism.