On my timeline of religion. If I was to put the start of the “infinitude" of god in religion. I would have a range of 600 BC to 200 Ad, is that correct?I don't know about that kind of thing. But, I figure it has always been the foundation for any adept, shaman, mystic, rishi or saint. References to immortality, eternality, beginning-less-ness, end-less-ness, oneness, singularity or omni anything, satisfy me as pointers to infinitude. The Vedic and Sanskrit literature for instance, rests on an ocean of oral tradition, evolved over millennia, steadily clarifying the undivided and timeless nature of Brahman].
I am always amazed at the philosophical approaches to enlightenment through meditation. Theism tells you to fill your mind with God in order to "connect" and experience enlightenment. Deism tells you to empty your mind completely in order to "connect" and experience enlightenment. IMO, as a meditation discipline, Deism is preferable as it seeks to "clear the mind" of all subjective notions in order to allow for objective thought, whereas Theism seeks to replace all objectivite thought by "filling the mind" with subjective notions. At least one must be the wrong approach.I like your analysis of these seemingly antithetical exercises, though the presumption that, "At least one must be the wrong approach", doesn't seem obvious to me. Considering the inscrutable nature of that which is under scrutiny. Utter fullness not being different than utter emptiness, when it comes to infinitude. Or am I wrong?
So in real people English, I think you are saying that religion is basically, us humans way of processing all the stuff we don't yet know, and all the stuff we can't know (due to the limits of our perception, including the limitation that comes with perceiving ourselves as individuals). Uh, if that's it, ok, I'm enlightened. Now what? (I hope it is nothing that involves typical religiosity bullshit.)Probably not what I was saying though is it? Not being "real" anyway, I wonder who you are talking to.
So in real people English, I think you are saying that religion is basically, us humans way of processing all the stuff we don't yet know, and all the stuff we can't know (due to the limits of our perception, including the limitation that comes with perceiving ourselves as individuals). Uh, if that's it, ok, I'm enlightened. Now what? (I hope it is nothing that involves typical religiosity bullshit.)Probably not what I was saying though is it? Not being "real" anyway, I wonder who you are talking to. Well. I was trying to interpret your shaman-y language and make some sense of it. And I was addressing you. But I don't even know if you think you and I exist. To me, it seems that your not-so-scrutable manner of expressing your points(?) is a façade designed to project the appearance of wisdom. But that's just me (in case I actually exist).
“God’s image being the undefined potential resulting from unbounded no-thing.”
I really should have stopped there. When they start splitting up words to make a nothing a thing, you know it’s bad.
“The point of religion being to draw us up close to that. To focus our attention. Regain the image.”
Regain the no-thing? Focus on nothing? Draw us into a conversation where you didn’t define the important terms?
“The Word is the first THING. Endless iterations later, here we are.”
And now you know what the thing is? Not bad, just two sentences away from saying it’s not defined.
Yeah, the reason I stated that, the older religions show no proven signs of having a god. But they did have a heaven. And it is still that way in some religions today that we don’t know how far back in history those religions go.Ah! I possibly get your point. I'll try to remember this in future replies. I think the emphasis on God or on heaven may be a matter of personal inclination, or an indication of ones stage of development. If there is a sense of otherness remaining, I find it is reasonable to think in terms of God and creation. Otherwise I can imagine it becoming a mere formality.
<![CDATA[
So in real people English, I think you are saying that religion is basically, us humans way of processing all the stuff we don’t yet know, and all the stuff we can’t know (due to the limits of our perception, including the limitation that comes with perceiving ourselves as individuals).
Uh, if that’s it, ok, I’m enlightened. Now what? (I hope it is nothing that involves typical religiosity bullshit.)
Probably not what I was saying though is it?
Not being “real” anyway, I wonder who you are talking to.
Well. I was trying to interpret your shaman-y language and make some sense of it. And I was addressing you. But I don’t even know if you think you and I exist. To me, it seems that your not-so-scrutable manner of expressing your points(?) is a façade designed to project the appearance of wisdom. But that’s just me (in case I actually exist).
I at no point really believed that you were trying to “make some sense of it”, but rather needed to put me in my place. Letting me know what the rules are.
I’ll be Moving on then, having said what I had to say.
I don’t make the rules here. If I did, I ]>
I am always amazed at the philosophical approaches to enlightenment through meditation. Theism tells you to fill your mind with God in order to "connect" and experience enlightenment. Deism tells you to empty your mind completely in order to "connect" and experience enlightenment. IMO, as a meditation discipline, Deism is preferable as it seeks to "clear the mind" of all subjective notions in order to allow for objective thought, whereas Theism seeks to replace all objectivite thought by "filling the mind" with subjective notions. At least one must be the wrong approach.I like your analysis of these seemingly antithetical exercises, though the presumption that, "At least one must be the wrong approach", doesn't seem obvious to me. Considering the inscrutable nature of that which is under scrutiny. Utter fullness not being different than utter emptiness, when it comes to infinitude. Or am I wrong? I would not presume to say you are wrong, but to compare subjective human thought process with an objective infinitude is a false equivalence, IMO. We are not even sure of what we observe without the aid of mathematics. Optical illusions is but one example of the limitations of the human brain (mind).
I would not presume to say you are wrong, but to compare subjective human thought process with an objective infinitude is a false equivalence, IMO. We are not even sure of what we observe without the aid of mathematics. Optical illusions is but one example of the limitations of the human brain (mind).But, the Infinitude we are referring to includes the subjective viewpoint. Subjective and Objective are not in play. (per the meditative exercise or whatever) Generally this is where the conversation spins-out, degrading into projections and accusations. I have grown reluctant to do much more of that. The statement of yours above, that I initially responded to, encouraged me to try again. (younger versions of ourselves ran through this a year or two ago). The exercise is good for me, but only as it moves forward into fuller comprehension. Your statement:
Infinite potential is a property of the universe and hierarchically exist as the Implicate order before it is expressed (Explicated) in reality.Is just inches from the understanding that I look for. I'm only encouraging you to put more emphasis on "infinitude". As I understand your use of language, one could say that absolute infinitude stands in relation to infinite potential as infinite potential stands in relation to reality. To me this is common sense, and if I lack the discipline of your training, perhaps you could apply some of it to the above scenario. Unless of course you already have, in which case I could use some explanation as to why it doesn't change the conversation. As for our dependence on mathematics for confirmation of our observations, I would think that that form of confirmation is an arbitrary and overly narrow restriction. It unnaturally limits our potential as human beings and I don't understand, for lack of a better term, the psychology of trying to limit experience in that way.
"God’s image being the undefined potential resulting from unbounded no-thing." I really should have stopped there. When they start splitting up words to make a nothing a thing, you know it's bad. "The point of religion being to draw us up close to that. To focus our attention. Regain the image." Regain the no-thing? Focus on nothing? Draw us into a conversation where you didn't define the important terms? "The Word is the first THING. Endless iterations later, here we are." And now you know what the thing is? Not bad, just two sentences away from saying it's not defined.Can you describe any more precisely what it is that is "bad" for you? "unbounded no-thing", preceding language, as it were, it would not ultimately be through language that it is known. That is pretty obvious. Though some would have difficulty even considering it. It's not unlike deciding at what point an acorn becomes a tree. One could just as well say it never does.
And now you know what the thing is? Not bad, just two sentences away from saying it's not defined.Can you describe any more precisely what it is that is "bad" for you? "unbounded no-thing", preceding language, as it were, it would not ultimately be through language that it is known. That is pretty obvious. Though some would have difficulty even considering it. It's not unlike deciding at what point an acorn becomes a tree. One could just as well say it never does. Nothing is "bad". I was using the term "not bad" as in "okay" or "a reasonable effort". In this case is was understatement because you went from "undefined potential" to "the word is the THING" in two steps. Either you're making it up as you go along, or that is giant leap of knowledge. I don't have difficulty considering things if they make any sense at all, which you don't. I'm perfectly capable of discussing things that came before language. We have the language of math to help us with that. An acorn becomes a tree at around 4 to 6 feet according to my tree identification guide. Why would you say a tree is not a tree?
Yeah, the reason I stated that, the older religions show no proven signs of having a god. But they did have a heaven. And it is still that way in some religions today that we don’t know how far back in history those religions go.Ah! I possibly get your point. I'll try to remember this in future replies. I think the emphasis on God or on heaven may be a matter of personal inclination, or an indication of ones stage of development. If there is a sense of otherness remaining, I find it is reasonable to think in terms of God and creation. Otherwise I can imagine it becoming a mere formality. Brmckay, I find your reply here to be non-cryptic, and I consider it to be a valid perspective.
I would not presume to say you are wrong, but to compare subjective human thought process with an objective infinitude is a false equivalence, IMO. We are not even sure of what we observe without the aid of mathematics. Optical illusions is but one example of the limitations of the human brain (mind).But, the Infinitude we are referring to includes the subjective viewpoint. Subjective and Objective are not in play. (per the meditative exercise or whatever) I agree that the actual hierarchical functions are independent of how we experience them subjectively. However, what we subjectively experience is the basis for OUR understanding of the hierarchies, and that can be incorrect. I cited optical illusions as but one example of a subjective false experience. Often the mathematics prove our "intuitive understanding" wrong. Case in point, the original naming of gods for every "unexplained" natural phenomena. Thor, Neptune, etc. It is from this jumble of subjective experiences that the notion of a single supreme God was born, a seemingly logical evolution of belief in a Higher Order. But if the logic is based on a false premise to begin with, all subsequent conclusions are false (even as they may be subjectively satisfying).
Generally this is where the conversation spins-out, degrading into projections and accusations. I have grown reluctant to do much more of that. The statement of yours above, that I initially responded to, encouraged me to try again. (younger versions of ourselves ran through this a year or two ago). The exercise is good for me, but only as it moves forward into fuller comprehension.Yes, usually it becomes a matter of semantics and interpretations of terms. That is the reason for my viewpoint that only mathematics can solve the mystery of Universal functions. It is a universal language which avoids false subjective interpretation of causality.
Your statement:Let me first qualify my musings as coming from an "interested layman", with some experience in fundamentals of the mathematical function. (accounting). Interesting side note, accountants are most pleased when all the hierarchical functions of a large "organization" can be mathematically described as "debit" and "credit" (positive and negative) and the "bottom lines" of both are equal and result in a zero sum state. Interestingly, double entry accounting was invented by a monk (Luca Pacioli).Infinite potential is a property of the universe and hierarchically exist as the Implicate order before it is expressed (Explicated) in reality.Is just inches from the understanding that I look for. I'm only encouraging you to put more emphasis on "infinitude". As I understand your use of language, one could say that absolute infinitude stands in relation to infinite potential as infinite potential stands in relation to reality. To me this is common sense, and if I lack the discipline of your training, perhaps you could apply some of it to the above scenario. Unless of course you already have, in which case I could use some explanation as to why it doesn't change the conversation.
As for our dependence on mathematics for confirmation of our observations, I would think that that form of confirmation is an arbitrary and overly narrow restriction. It unnaturally limits our potential as human beings and I don't understand, for lack of a better term, the psychology of trying to limit experience in that way.Marthematics does not in any way restrict subjective "imagination", but it can "falsify" the product of that imagination (as in optical illusions). My interpretation of the word "Potential" in it's broadest application is, "That which MAY become reality". From that I see a lower hierarchy of "possibility" and still lower, "probability" ( the Implicate), and finally expression in our reality as the Explicate. But not all potential can or will become explicit. In the infinitude of Potentials, only a small portion becomes expressed in our reality (the Deterministic function). IMHO, David Bohm was really onto something. I find comfort in the fact that he was an eminent physicist and knew the maths.
Implicate order and explicate order are concepts coined by David Bohm to describe two different frameworks for understanding the same phenomenon or aspect of reality. He uses these notions to describe how the same phenomenon might look different, or might be characterized by different principal factors, in different contexts such as at different scales. The implicate order, also referred to as the "enfolded" order, is seen as a deeper and more fundamental order of reality. In contrast, the explicate or "unfolded" order include the abstractions that humans normally perceive. As he writes: In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders (Bohm 1980, p. xv).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order And here is a review of Bohm's Lifework; http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/david_bohm.htm#CONTENTS:
Nothing is "bad". I was using the term "not bad" as in "okay" or "a reasonable effort". In this case is was understatement because you went from "undefined potential" to "the word is the THING" in two steps. Either you're making it up as you go along, or that is giant leap of knowledge. I don't have difficulty considering things if they make any sense at all, which you don't. I'm perfectly capable of discussing things that came before language. We have the language of math to help us with that.Since we are discussing "unbounded no-thing", math is no more adequate than English in the matter. It would seem that there isn't any potential for us to work with here. We might as well consider it bad Haiku and move on.
An acorn becomes a tree at around 4 to 6 feet according to my tree identification guide. Why would you say a tree is not a tree?Since my question remains irrelevant, I'm afraid yours must as well.
sooooo, you intend to be ambiguous, you don’t want to say anything that actually means anything, did I get that right?
And here is a review of Bohm's Lifework; http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/david_bohm.htm#CONTENTS:Thank you. I am grateful for the link to Bohm's work. The following quote taken from the segment on his dialogues with Krishnamurti, pretty much says exactly what I have been getting at. Right down to the use of the term "no-thingness".
The Bohm-Krishnamurti dialogue set a profound precedent in being one of the first enduring dialogues between a leading Western physicist and a world-renowned Eastern spiritual master. Their discussions probed deeply into various dimensions of human knowledge and experience, including in-depth discussions of the limitations of human thought, the nature of insight and intelligence beyond thought, as well as many other topics such as truth, reality, death, existence, fragmentation, and the future of humanity. In exploring the distinction between truth and reality, for example, some of the jewels of insight that emerged may be summarized as follows (which, in the spirit of Bohm and Krishnamurti themselves, should perhaps be read slowly and contemplatively to be absorbed). There is a gulf between truth and reality; they are not the same thing. Illusion and falsehood are certainly part of reality, but they are not part of truth. Truth includes all that is; it is one. Reality is conditioned and multiple. Truth is beyond reality; it comprehends reality, but not vice versa. Reality is everything; truth is no-thingness. We need truth, but our minds are occupied with reality. We seek security in reality, but authentic security comes only in complete nothingness, that is, only in truth. The seed of truth is a mystery that thought cannot encompass; it is beyond reality.This should save us days of ineffectual back and forth. It being the only point I really needed to make.
sooooo, you intend to be ambiguous, you don't want to say anything that actually means anything, did I get that right?No, you didn't get it right. Please see my response to Write4U's comment #133. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/17921/P135/#214558]
sooooo, you intend to be ambiguous, you don't want to say anything that actually means anything, did I get that right?No, you didn't get it right. Please see my response to Write4U's comment #133. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/17921/P135/#214558] I'm assuming you're referring to what you said here, "As for our dependence on mathematics for confirmation of our observations, I would think that that form of confirmation is an arbitrary and overly narrow restriction. It unnaturally limits our potential as human beings and I don’t understand, for lack of a better term, the psychology of trying to limit experience in that way." You're just dismissing a tool we use for understanding as something we "depend on". Why wouldn't we want to "confirm our observations", if we do that in a way that does not confirm a bias, but rather sheds light on our experience by sharing our experiences? I assume you have no training in the field of physics if you just dismiss it as 'arbitrary'. You want to call these things "limits" because they show that you don't know what you're talking about. You want to make up definitions for things as you go and claim some personal experience of yours trumps everybody else. Sorry, not on this forum.
sooooo, you intend to be ambiguous, you don't want to say anything that actually means anything, did I get that right?No, you didn't get it right. Please see my response to Write4U's comment #133. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/17921/P135/#214558] I'm assuming you're referring to what you said here, "As for our dependence on mathematics for confirmation of our observations, I would think that that form of confirmation is an arbitrary and overly narrow restriction. It unnaturally limits our potential as human beings and I don’t understand, for lack of a better term, the psychology of trying to limit experience in that way." You're just dismissing a tool we use for understanding as something we "depend on". Why wouldn't we want to "confirm our observations", if we do that in a way that does not confirm a bias, but rather sheds light on our experience by sharing our experiences? I assume you have no training in the field of physics if you just dismiss it as 'arbitrary'. You want to call these things "limits" because they show that you don't know what you're talking about. You want to make up definitions for things as you go and claim some personal experience of yours trumps everybody else. Sorry, not on this forum. No, I provided you a link to the intended comment. If you read it, I imagine that even you will find the above statement (in it's context) makes sense. If not, well, then it doesn't. No need to get all huffy about it.
No, I provided you a link to the intended comment. If you read it, I imagine that even you will find the above statement (in it's context) makes sense. If not, well, then it doesn't. No need to get all huffy about it.Telling you that you are not using logic and reason on site dedicated to that, is not being huffy.