You Are Life Made Conscious

I greatly appreciate the positive confirmation on how you feel--I mean about my 'seeming like a real nice guy,' not about my being a cousin of Spock--and wish to humbly report that I have confidence that those who do know me (and my wife, even'll say the same [believe it or not]) would likewise make such a confirmation. AND, would it not go without saying? I can state that you too seem to be a nice person.

Nextly, please do allow me to apologize for not making some sentences (clauses/ideas) as complete as they should have been; I'm sorry. In going back over all the posts, I did notice that I had posted some incomplete sentences, and there was some error in my syntax (which could very well have caused some confusion, as well).


In quickly touching base with prothero, I may have 'read you' wrong, to some degree, in your #14. You had posted:

[indent][/indent]

Connecting the referent point (locution) for the word 'it' can cause the passage to be read to be saying that in the earliest configurations of human religious belief-systems, the affirmative declaration of the universe's having purpose, and by extension (in context), humankind's existence, by those earliest configurations, had been in rejection of, or in challenge to 'the materialistic view of the universe as a deterministic machine driven by blind impersonal forces in which life and mind . . ..'

I had intended to point out (my #16) that this later 'to have been challenged and/or rejected' proposition had most evidently not been a major proposition held by humankind in those ancient days, at all ! In your response to that, I can now tend to see that you had possibly meant to refer only to the now, presently being espoused clause--rather than, as your wording had given rise to, the same clause put forward by ancient relgious belief-system tenet.

I am personally not really one of 'Scientism'-lean, although I do maintain a strong grip on something which may very closely resemble the method of pragmatism, and strongly vouch for going with the better or best average of the bulk of evidence for matters--through the likes of 'free inquiry,' 'logic', and 'practical ration'. This kind of answers to the rest of your post there, in a way.




I greatly appreciate your opening up, there. I believe in nature. I don't use the word 'god' or any other fairly translatable word of that sort from any other language, for obvious linguistically fixed-by-usage-attached-notions that such a word invariably brings up in the human mind. However, to this extent, I feel (as opposed to reason, think) that the essence of our emotional earnings are quite similar. While 'intelligence,' in my opinon, is what we humans tend to apply towards pattern (static or moving), I frown on automatically allowing that to insinuate 'a center of intelligence' such as we concieve of in a brain, ganglion, being, individual entity, or so on.

[indent]

[/indent]




This is of course not the first time, either, that you have said so, nor the first time to have used the term,'cultural chauvinism.' (#117, #12) Yet I wish to draw to your concerned attention, jeeprs, that my quote above, is specifically dealing with the expressed points that you had put in your post (quoted above mine [both indented]) viz., 'Rational Soul,' 'Imageo Dei,' and ' only a human can realise Nibbana and become free from the eternal round.' These expressed points (not each and every, and all of everything every wise, or not so wise, person has ever postulated in ages past, as I have hinted at when responding to you in the past as well) have been shown to be obsolete--not nearly as factual in nature as the originator of them may have been making an effort to espouse. (the Hebrew is still a bit unclear as to intention by the orginal author [of course, the Latin was much later, and was Christian influenced through the LXX])

Therefore I am not saying anything against ALL religious belief-system tenets, as a single clump; the natural element of reciprocal socal interaction which was necessary for building more efficient social bondings, for example, and which are not only found in human social groups, and which is wrapped up in many religious belief-systems' tenets [such as the Golden Rule, or your Dhammapada 1:5 quote]
is, as you have pointed out, universal and timeless in nature. Such natural circumstances came chronologically prior to understanding that they were working in a certain fashion, whence 'spiritual' tenets sprang; and they always hold because that is nature at work.

While there are other points in your above quoted-from post, jeeprs, that could possibly stand being argued against, I will stop here for the purpose on maintaining topic focus in this thread. Precision is a very important thing, and I feel it should be sought after. It is in the method of applying precision in testing for verification that I am playing around with the ideas that you had posted in 'playing-around-with' mode. My intention is to point out areas underlying points within the ideas you are playing around with which greatly, more greatly, or, in some instances, most greatly stand the test of time and empirical knowlege, and those which do not (in the varying degrees that they do not). [although I am not going about it in the specifically worded order here]

thanks very much, Kasiejin, for taking the time to explain your viewpoint better. I think I had indeed misread it. I was perhaps being overly defensive.

Still, as I read more of the spiritual literature and re-interpret it in the light of what we now know - and we obviously know considerably more now - many of the key insights ring true. In fact more so than ever, for me. For example, the rational soul. I don't think the soul can be demonstrated to 'exist' either, but I know it means something. It refers to a reality. Perhaps it is poetic or mythic. But reality is of various kinds. Hence my many musings in other threads about 'existence and reality' which is really the old, old distinction between appearance and reality...

I am very sensitive to the claims of science as far as it being the vanguard of all human knowledge. Of course science and scientific knowledge is indispensable, but yet there is still the question of wisdom - how to direct scientific knowledge, and what knowledge to seek - that is beyond the confines of science. So whenever there is a suggestion that in regards to these more subtle qualitative judgdments that 'science knows best' I do tend to bristle. That is the source of those remarks.

Anyway, again, thanks for taking the time to explain your viewpoint and I am beginning to see our common ground.

I understand. I hope to work on some of the reasonings behind some of the points, such as the original intent in the mind of those who espoused that 'rational soul,' and so on, over time (perhaps that would not all be here, in this thread). I do intend to play around with some of the ideas (and detail behind them) that you have started to play around with here in this thread, however. I will try to keep fairly focused. I'm sure we'll find differences of viewpoint, and emotional attachment, but as long as argumentation flows can be followed (as in understand) logically, so as to be conceptualized as much as possible (1), I do think it would be a good thing. I do understand the thinking behind your second paragraph, above.


1. This is not to imply that there must be agreement, necessarily, but that a concept which I may have in my mind, I would at least want to place, as is, in one coherent piece [since that is as it would be in my mind; be that most accurately so or not] in your mind. If, through the process of language, portions or connections making up that idea in my mind which I am trying to get across into your mind, are lost, then what you finally end up with in your mind would not match that which would be in my mind--and of course this is a bilateral exchange and desire. Following through, therefore, is very important, I always stress.

I do have a pluralist outlook, and believe in the ideals of secular humanism and the spirit of progress. So I don't think there is only one truth or that any particular narrative is the exclusive road to truth.

However I also believe that not all religious truths are manufactured by humans. They pre-exist us in exactly the same way that the laws of physics pre-existed us. However by virtue of our intelligence, we are able to know those laws and give expression to them.

I do not assert to existence of a supernatural creator. However, following the point above, I believe there is a moral law, and that this amounts to more than the social contract, insofar as it has a basis in reality.

I don't know if it can be proven, but I believe it can be lived.