The energy expended in "religious debates".

That's funny JL, although slightly pornographic,

definitely 'graphic'

Fresco; i would say to the original premise, that is why we are here;
(not here being 'this universe', but here at a2k) to experience the conjectures, wisdom, concepts, and foolishness of the mix.
(and, perhaps, occassionally, to learn something!)

truth
Come on guys, I said "suck" not "bl*w." Such dirty minds.

Fresco,

My usage of "to be known" is to be understood, or experienced.

Your question related to Religious debates in particular, with the observation that it was unlikely that much of the communication therein would lead to any change in participant viewpoints on things. And if no change is likely, why interact.

My supposition is that change is not what we are seeking, though it may occur. Change is secondary to expression and interaction.

And the most unique and personal things we can express are our views of the things which are not derived through empiricism. Thus, the religious discussions draw the debaters, like moths to a flame.

Best Regards,

truth
Very interesting comment, Rosborne.

and, at the risk of sounding 'wishy washy', i would add that Frankapisa's position bears representation here;

On the subject of a belief in the supernatural, as related to the workings of human society, it must be said that there can be no absolute surety for one position, or the other (one of the reasons that i favour the "lack" position, as it is reinforced by a lack of actual, concrete, evidence); therefore, to a seriously 'thinking individual' more viewpoints expressed in an open and respectful manner, can only add to one's thourough understanding of the subject, and contribute to a meaningful opinion.

Unfortunately, there is frequently a lapse in such openess, and respect from the continual harping of some on unthinking acceptance of unproven "evidence" in either direction, which muddies the subject, and serves only to incite abuse, and derision.

twyvel.

Who observes the "objective reality" that you say is formed from the merging of "observer" and "observed"? To my mind there is no way out of an infinite regress unless you evoke "God" as the ubiquitous observer (along the lines of Berkeley) but surely that begs the question.

BoGoWo

I think (too ?) that we need to steer well clear of concepts of "evidence" or "truth" in the analysis of our participation in religious debates. Perhaps JLN hits the mark when he describes "the need to interact" which evokes for me almost a "dancing mode". To milk this metaphor further although it is possible dance alone, conjoint dancing seems to have the edge in terms of satisfaction...which gives a sort of biblical slant on the word "knowing" !

I agree with everyone here. How's that for conserving energy? Since Italy had a blackout following other parts of the world, we must do our part, 'ya know.

Oh, No! Bo's just called on a higher entity. I think Frank is playing golf.

J.L. I understood what you meant. The very idea of Twyvel suggesting such a thing.

TO ALL

JLN has requested a thread on esoteric philosophy which has much to say on energy expenditure. If interested please refer to the philosophy forum.

truth
Fresco, you ask the question "who observes the 'objective reality' that you say is formed from the merging of 'observer' and observed'? Tywvel will answer you soon, I'm sure. But let me anticipate him. The answer is NO-ONE, neither human nor God. There is just the experience of observing. The trouble is that we cannot--because we are enslaved by grammar--imagine that. But if we see that the "need" to have an observer is itself only another experience or conditioned drive that has emerged in the World. But at the same time, I cannot rule out the objective world (solipsism makes no sense to me)--the "things" "I" interact with for there to emerge experience. Objectively speaking, I cannot have an observation without my perceptual apparatus, and the events that occur in my environment which interact with my apparatus to create an experience. In a sense, then, subjectivity and objective situations exist TOGETHER (this is not too different from your interactionism, as I understand it). But all this does not require a "self" who observes. That's an unnecessary addition to the equation.
Note, Bo that the above comments--whether valid or not--have little or nothing to do with "unambiguous evidence". They merely reflect a PERSPECTIVE on the experience we all live with everyday.

truth
Now I'm off to check out the new thread. Thanks, Fresco.

The problem is BoGoWo if I say I know that a god exists, which is a logical statement coming from me if I know it, it's considered illogical.

Logic is a function of available knowledge. If the nondual nature of existence is more ?'real' to someone then these words then saying so is not illogical to that someone.

What appears as illogical to X maybe perfectly logical to Y.

And I don't know about adding to ones ?'through understanding', perhaps ?'limited understanding'.

fresco

JLNobody has made some interesting points, but I'll add…

The objective reality isn't formed from the emergence of the "observer" and "observed", it's the same old objective reality that was there all along. What changes is the awareness shifts from being confined and identified with the body/ego and becomes nonlocal, (which apparently is the state it's always already in). In this nondual state the awareness/consciousness not only ?'observes' but also IS what it observes. The "observer" and the "observed" disappear and as JL has said all there is is observing, no objects, nouns or things, just verbs or process.

It's a radical transformation from the personal ego perspective because it is the ego's death; the ego is revealed for what it is, a fiction. So there really is no death, but maybe a hell of a shock,...



There's no infinite regress because there never was an observer, which is to say, awareness cannot be observed and therefore transcends the manifest (the world of observables); awareness is one with it's observations yet transcends them,…. nondual.

JLN and Twyvel.

Thankyou both for very clear descriptions of the spiritual position with respect to ego transcendence.
You should both have a look at "Second Order Cybernetics" as a non-spiritual approach to merging of observer and observed.
e.g.
http://www.flec.kvl.dk/sbr/Cyber/cybernetics/vol1/v1-1hvf.htm

truth
Twyvel, I'm glad you refer to the "death" of the ego as seeing it for what it is, a fiction. Based on my experience with zen adepts, the ego fiction is retained for everyday use, particularly when intereacting with others. Ego is an heuristic fiction, which perhaps explains why it occurs, with minor variations, in all cultures of the world. I suspect it has great natural selection value. I can't imagine the formation of societies (something essential to the survival of human individuals) without this useful fiction.

Yes apparently even a sage or jnani retains an ego; enough of an ego to take care of the body and it's necessary functions. A small ego put in its place so to speak; subordinated to the knowledge that it is not real, subjected to the truth, its truth. A Major Blow (metaphorically) suddenly and abruptly dropped by its lover, its influence, eminence and control greatly diminished. It realizes it doesn't have a soul, that it is not conscious and doesn't constitute an entity. Heuristic as you so correctly put it, holding on by a tether, useful for maintenance. Whereas before it would kill to survive, placing itself without question above all, now a mere pawn its desire to live will be weighed and possibly vetoed. No longer will it get all it wishes for or the neurotic variations and alternative, ?'plan B's, C's etc. of those wishes.

The reins have been picked up by a mysterious unknown.... a mystery it can't possible comprehend.

What a shock how could it be it wonders, (or there is just wondering), that in this search for so called enlightenment with every tiny insight or intuitive advance I have been committing suicide.


That's what I was thinking last night; Can one live, function, survive in this world without desire, and its variants?

A healthy philosophy of life is as good as any religion and needn't depend on a manufactured diety (unless one want to make Proust, for instance, into a God). Philosphy most often defies logic so Letty's "philosophy of music" is still based on intrinsic feelings from the deepest recesses of our minds. Listening to classical music and looking at art of any kind can make my day. I don't even have to buy anything (as there is also no logic in buying stuff to make one happier than they were the day before). To me, it's not the energy that is expended in religious debates, it's the ideas expended. They seem to start from nowhere and always end nowhere.

I agree with JL about the ego -- one can't suddenly claim that they have rid themselves of their ego. They can, however, manage their ego. Religion seems to be a simplified way of doing it but I've seen it as more counter productive than productive.

truth
Twyvel, I've heard (and this is mere hearsay) that sometmes when a zen monk is about to fall into enlightenment, when he is about to see the illusory nature of "self/ego", he suffers panic attacks, feeling that he is about to die. Then, if he crosses the barrier, if he realizes the fictional nature of that "self" who feared to die, the great burden of Death is lifted. From that time on he realizes that while his body will someday die, in fact that it is dying every 7 years, there is no self/ego to die. Can we appreciate what a life can be like without the fear (suppressed or not) of death? Oh, another point. It seems to me that enlightenment does not preclude desire; they are the natural functions of a body, like serotonin or digestive juices. But ATTACHMENT to desires is another matter. Identification with a "self" who must have desires gratified is the problem.

They're just trying to face up to their ego? How namby pamby -- try facing up to one's Id.