Truth and Language

Frank, I have no quarrel with your logic. As far as I can tell, it is faultless. But the issue of God's existence is not, and to my mind cannot be, a matter of logic and reason. If anything, it is a matter for the right side of the brain.
If there were a God (as you know I do not find the matter sensible) and It appeared, for whatever reason, to Baffman, but left no evidence of It's visit, Baffman would have no way of convincing you or me of the event. It would be a totally private form of knowledge. Now, I agree with you that this is not likely to occur, and that when people pray to God, I consider them religious, but when God talks to them I consider them psychotic. I may be wrong about that, but I can't see how.
I believe that if there were a God, Its existence and nature (or supernature) would be far beyond the capacity of my mind to grasp. That's one of the things I find amusing about all Bibles; they are too graspable.
The only kind of knowledge I would want of God is to participate in Its nature directly. That would be mysticism of a sort, a form of ineffable but DIRECT and non-symbolic enlightenment.
I am just trying to stretch the boundaries of this essentially theological discussion beyond the restraints of logic and reason, qualities I consider inappropriate to the subject matter. To me, the ultimate object of Religion, in the true sense of the word, is Absoute Reality, which is inherently mysterious and unknowable in terms of logic and reason. Baffman's contributions are intelligent and humble, I just wish (arrogantly perhaps) that he would give up the reasoning/discursive approach and privatize his search, mainly by means of meditation.
There's an old saying: "Mysticism has not the patience to wait for God's revelation." Does that mean anything to you?

0 Replies

Nobody

Being one of those who discussed with Baffman using logical arguments, I own you an explanation.
As you know, God is not part of my way to think and live.But I cannot enter a discussion about the existence of God, without using logical references. If I didn't do that, I would be trapped in answers that would lead me to contradictions, like the last one posed by Baffman.
To me, the question of God doesn't make sense. Here I feel being close to Wittgenstein "Tratactus".

But you pointed another issue. God as the transcendent, that means, all that is beyond our experience conditions - perception, reasoning, language. That entity, that you call the Absolute, can only be reached by a mystical revelation. I do not deny that possibility. The fact that I say we only know what is within our experience conditions, opens "the door" to a possible infinity that cannot be express in rational concepts. I don't know what to say about the mystical experience: a simple psychologic fact? An intuition of the transcendence? I don't know.
I think everybody feels, in some particular moments, that sense of transcendency. I can not hear the Adagio of Beethoven's 29th Sonata without feeling that there is something beyond that almost supernatural beauty of the music. But is that feeling only a psychologic "fait-divers"? Or is it more than that? I don't know.

0 Replies

Val, I don't know either, but I don't think it's important that I do. I just take it as it comes--with profound gratitude.
But I understand you (I think). When we engage others discursively, we ARE confined within the boundaries of language and logic. Otherwise we must express our intuitions in the form of paradoxes. Then nobody wants to bother with us. Nondualistic insight must be corrupted by dualistic logic and language for the sake of discursive engagement. Otherwise we must remain silent and alone.

0 Replies

JL

I agree in principle with what you offered...but the bottom line is that people who come into an Internet forum to discuss these things cetainly have to be prepared to discuss their assertions from the perspective of logic and reason.

If everything they offer is simply to be accepted without question...it might just as well not be offered, because no one here is going to accept it that way.

Baffman asserted a specific item for consideration, namely that the answer to the question "Can we know anything about God?"...can only be answered YES!

That falls outside the realm of faith...and enters that of absurdity.

I've tried to explain my position in courteous terms...but I certainly am not going to "simply accept" this assertion.

But be that as it may, rather than revisit my comments to Baffman, I would like to comment on something you wrote.

Quote:

I believe that if there were a God, Its existence and nature (or supernature) would be far beyond the capacity of my mind to grasp. That's one of the things I find amusing about all Bibles; they are too graspable.

Well...if there were a God...and if the God were of a mind to have you KNOW It exists...It certainly would have the power to make Itself KNOWN in a way that your mind would be able to grasp.

Hell...the God supposedly made all the stars in our galaxy...all the galaxies we know about...and the space to fit all that stuff in. Making Itself known in a way your mind could grasp should be child's play to such a Being.

In fact, one of the strongest arguments AGAINST the existence of a God who wants humans to KNOW of Its existence...is that we do not KNOW it. Any God who could not do a better job of revealing Itself than the god of scriptures is a silly god to consider.

Quote:

Now, I agree with you that this is not likely to occur, and that when people pray to God, I consider them religious, but when God talks to them I consider them psychotic....

Very cute. I will borrow this at some point, I'm sure. I hope I remember to give you credit.

Quote:

There's an old saying: "Mysticism has not the patience to wait for God's revelation." Does that mean anything to you?

Not especially...but that is not surprising, because I've never been good with adages.

Tell me about what it means for you.

I'd like to hear.

0 Replies

Frank, to me the saying, "Mysticism has not the patience to wait for God's revelation" suggests that mystics do not consider religious truth to be something external to themselves, that it will or will not come (be revealed) TO them. Mystics have, first of all, the intuition that whatever Ultimate or Absolute Reality (god if you will) is, it is inherent to their own nature. Therefore, instead of awaiting God's revelation, they look NOW into their own true nature. That, as I understand it, is the point of meditation. Notice that Abrahamic religions--religions that define man and God as separate--emphasize prayer, talking TO God. Eastern and other mystical religions--religions that define man and God as a unity--emphasize meditation, the examination or realization of this unity.

0 Replies

JL

Both...or perhaps I ought say "all"...have the same shortcoming.

And that shortcoming is best illustrated by asking either...or "any"...the following question (which you have heard dozens of times)...

...As regards your "communication" (either with a god or with an inner self)...how do you know you are not deluding yourself in the supposed communication?

0 Replies

I can only ask how anyone can know, in the absence of infallible objective or subjective evidence, that he is not deluding himself. This would apply to your perspective no less than it applies to mine. How does one prove a negative? We seek revelations or proofs that satisfy us, and there is little more than that in the processes of philosophy, religion and science. It reminds me of the Christian fundamentalist who asked why evolutionary scientists do not consider the possibility that Satan is deceiving them with planted "objective" evidence.

0 Replies

My point is that anyone falling back on conversations with gods...or with "getting in touch with reality through meditation"...CANNOT be sure he/she is not deluding him/herself.

We are in agreement on that.

You recognize it as well as I.

I am not asking anyone to "prove a negative."

I am simply asking everyone to consider that any private revelation about REALITY may, in fact, be nothing more than self-delusion.

And that being the case, personal revelation has about as much value in arriving at the true nature of REALITY as scriptural revelation...which is to say...

...NONE AT ALL.

0 Replies

Well, if you are so satisfied with your negative conclusion, I wish you well. I would like a bit more than that.

0 Replies

Quote:

And that being the case, personal revelation has about as much value in arriving at the true nature of REALITY as scriptural revelation...which is to say...

...NONE AT ALL

Don't quite agree with the scale of comparison.

Meditative experience could be delusion. But chances are that it may not be a delusion. Right?Let us get a bit mathematical here. Smile

Say Pm is the probability that a meditative experience will reveal reality.

Now for scripture, most scriptures are expression of meditative experiences. The revealed reality is bound to loose some of its purity when expressed grossly as a scripture.Fair? Say the probability that a scripture is accurate reflection of revelation is Pr

Now, the other problem is how honestly a scripture is preserved, presented and interpreted. Say Ph is the probability of having honest presentation of scriptures.

To summarize...
Probability of success with meditation = Pm
Probability of success with scriptures alone = Pm*Ps*Ph (much lower than Pm)
Probability of knowing the reality without having to take any risk whatsoever would be perhaps 0.

So even at the risk of sounding deluded, meditation may offer the
best chance of getting a first hand glimpse into reality.

0 Replies

Frank, regarading your point that "...any private revelation about REALITY may, in fact, be nothing more than self-delusion." That can also apply to public or group conceptions of reality. Group delusion may be part of a reasonable defilnition of a cultural system or worldview. I only mention this because of your implicit emphasis on the difference between private-subjective vs. public-objective perspectives.

0 Replies

blueSky wrote:

Quote:
And that being the case, personal revelation has about as much value in arriving at the true nature of REALITY as scriptural revelation...which is to say...

...NONE AT ALL

Don't quite agree with the scale of comparison.

Meditative experience could be delusion. But chances are that it may not be a delusion. Right?Let us get a bit mathematical here. Say Pm is the probability that a meditative experience will reveal reality.

Now for scripture, most scriptures are expression of meditative experiences. The revealed reality is bound to loose some of its purity when expressed grossly as a scripture.Fair? Say the probability that a scripture is accurate reflection of revelation is Pr

Now, the other problem is how honestly a scripture is preserved, presented and interpreted. Say Ph is the probability of having honest presentation of scriptures.

To summarize...
Probability of success with meditation = Pm
Probability of success with scriptures alone = Pm*Ps*Ph (much lower than Pm)
Probability of knowing the reality without having to take any risk whatsoever would be perhaps 0.

So even at the risk of sounding deluded, meditation may offer the
best chance of getting a first hand glimpse into reality.

I'm not much of a mathematician, BSso in order to understand some of what you are suggesting hereI have to ask a question.

If the P in those formulae has a numerical value of 0 (zero)would it still hold that the probability of success with meditation is greater than the probability of success with scripture?

Oh, by the way...what branch of mathematics did you use to come up with... "But chances are that it (the meditative experience) may not be a delusion."

0 Replies

The branch of mathematics is called "Probability" It is not BS Smile

Quantum mechanics bases all its predictions on that. And QM does make good enough predictions to be accepted and studied as science.

Probability can have value from 0 to 1. 1 for definite success. 0.5 for 50% chance of success. 0 for definite failure. Pm=0 is equivalent of saying that meditation will definitely never ever reveal any reality whatsoever. Would you assert that? I wouldn't.

All in all, we are talking about an approach and quantifying its risks. I am implying in my probability that meditation approach is definitely much less riskier compared to sticking to the scriptures alone, which add further factors that may obscure the reality.

But not taking any risk at all with any of the approach available is basically 0 probability of success. And if there is another way with lesser risks (or no risk) I would try. Why not? But I would try. Perhaps all I am saying is I would prefer to fail by trying rather than failing to try.

0 Replies

blueSky wrote:

The branch of mathematics is called "Probability" It is not BS Quantum mechanics bases all its predictions on that. And QM does make good enough predictions to be accepted and studied as science.

Probability can have value from 0 to 1. 1 for definite success. 0.5 for 50% chance of success. 0 for definite failure.

I thank you for that information, BlueSky. Although I mentioned that I am not much of a mathematician, I was an economics major undergrad...and took economics statistics/probability in that discipline. I had a math credit to make up...and I took math statistics/probability to make up that credit. In grad school, I majored in Psychology...and took psych statistics/probability once again.

But that was a long time agoand the refresher was welcome.

Quote:

Pm=0 is equivalent of saying that meditation will definitely never ever reveal any reality whatsoever. Would you assert that? I wouldn't.

It is not necessary to assert that at all. We were not talking about revealing any realitywe were talking about whether or not it would reveal anything about the true nature of REALITY.

There is a very definite possibility that one could meditate 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, every weekfor yearsand not have one single revelation about the true nature of REALITY....just as one could spend all that time studying scripture and not have one thing revealed about the true nature of REALITY.

My question stands: If one of the values in your formulae were 0 (zero)would it still hold that the probability of success with meditation is greater than the probability of success with scripture?

HINT: No it wouldn't!

Quote:

All in all, we are talking about an approach and quantifying its risks. I am implying in my probability that meditation approach is definitely much less riskier compared to sticking to the scriptures alone, which add further factors that may obscure the reality.

I understand thatand I appreciate your position. I hope you can extend some appreciation to my positionwhich is that neither may give the slightest insights into the Ultimate REALITY of existenceand any insights that adherents of either discipline feel they may be obtainingmay simply be delusion.

(Please notice all those may's. I do not know if either or both give insightsor if neither does. We really don't knowdo we?)

Quote:

But not taking any risk at all with any of the approach available is basically 0 probability of success.

That depends on what you consider success.

I think gaining the confidence to simply acknowledge, "I do not know" when one does not knowis huge success. I think gaining the confidence to simply acknowledge, "I do not have enough information to make an informed guess on that"is huge success.

Quote:

And if there is another way with lesser risks (or no risk) I would try. Why not? But I would try. Perhaps all I am saying is I would prefer to fail by trying rather than failing to try.

Whatever!

It is my opinion that your waywhich doesn't differ appreciably from the way Christians and Islamics operateopens the door to so much mischief in this worldbetter to just acknowledge agnosticism.

But as I saidI do appreciate your positionalthough I do not share it at all.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, regarading your point that "...any private revelation about REALITY may, in fact, be nothing more than self-delusion." That can also apply to public or group conceptions of reality.

Absolutely.

Quote:

Group delusion may be part of a reasonable defilnition of a cultural system or worldview.

Could be!

Quote:

I only mention this because of your implicit emphasis on the difference between private-subjective vs. public-objective perspectives.

I'm not even sure I understand that...let alone that I have been implicit in emphasizing it.

I am merely saying that any supposed revelation about what "this" is all about...what the Ultimate REALITY of existence is...MAY BE DELUSION.

Until someone can convince me that he/she KNOWS that any supposed revelation absolutely is not delusion...I must consider that it MAY BE.

Essentially...whether I am discussing with a fundamentalist Christian or a Buddhist or a non-dualist meditator...that considerations plays a very important part in my considerations.

0 Replies

Quote:

My question stands: If one of the values in your formulae were 0 (zero)

If you are really open to any possibility of success with meditation, you cannot assign value of 0. Pm=0 is the case of assertion that Meditation will always definitely fail for any person who may practice it. In fact this position is close to a fundamentalist asserting that every word written and interpreted in a particular version scripture is pure 100% truth. P=0 or P=1 are both as fundamentalistic as asserting definitely that "There is God" or "There is no god" I am surprised as an agnostic you take one of them with respect to meditation.

Also you seem to equate meditating with asserting as "I know". Meditation is only a way of saying 'Find out for yourself' How would that open up door for mischief? The real mischief is choking up any exploration

Actually, I respect and share your agnostic position. It is the best place to begin meditation.

0 Replies

Bluesky, very well put. I wish I had said that to Frank a long time ago. I refer to:
"... you seem to equate meditating with asserting..."I know". Meditation is only a way of saying 'Find out for yourself' How would that open up [a] door for mischief? The real mischief is choking up any exploration.
Actually, I respect and share your agnostic position. It is the best place to begin meditation."

0 Replies

blueSky wrote:

Quote:
My question stands: If one of the values in your formulae were 0 (zero)

If you are really open to any possibility of success with meditation, you cannot assign value of 0. Pm=0 is the case of assertion that Meditation will always definitely fail for any person who may practice it. In fact this position is close to a fundamentalist asserting that every word written and interpreted in a particular version scripture is pure 100% truth. P=0 or P=1 are both as fundamentalistic as asserting definitely that "There is God" or "There is no god" I am surprised as an agnostic you take one of them with respect to meditation.

You obviously have a very closed mind on this, BSso it may not be worthwhile to continuebut, if I am anythingI am persistent.

The question I posed does not assume anything about whether or not any benefit can be derived from meditation or not.

We were discussing whether or not meditationor scripturecan give ANY INSIGHTS INTO THE REALITY OF EXISTENCE. What it actually isif there is a God or are no godsif there was a beginningif there will be an endingANY OF THOSE UNKNOWNS.

NowI pointblank DO NOT KNOW if religionscriptureor meditationCAN GIVE ANY INSIGHTS INTO THESE UNKNOWN. I also do not know that religion, scripture, or meditation CANNOT give any insights into these unknowns.

That issue is an unknown to meand I do not have any unambiguous evidence upon which to base a guess that "some insights can be obtained" or "no insights can be obtained."

That being the caseI ask my question for a third time:

If one of the values in the equation you offered happens to be zeroA POSSIBILITY NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WANT TO BLINDLY ASSERT IT IS NOT A POSSIBILITY

does your conclusion hold that meditation is more likely to produce success than scripture?

And, being the fair guy I am, ALLOW ME TO REPEAT MY HINT:

NO.THAT CONCLUSION WOULD NO LONGER HOLD.

Quote:

Actually, I respect and share your agnostic position. It is the best place to begin meditation.

Yes, I know you think meditation is the best place to beginbecause of the formula you mentionedthe one I am attempting to show you holds no water whatsoever.

0 Replies

Quote:

NowI pointblank DO NOT KNOW if religionscriptureor meditationCAN GIVE ANY INSIGHTS INTO THESE UNKNOWN. I also do not know that religion, scripture, or meditation CANNOT give any insights into these unknowns.

I too share that view. And that doesn't mathematically translate into P=0. Again, you don't have to take my word for it. You can find out for yourself. Just a math rule. Smile

P=0 is the extremity corresponding to a blind assertion that meditation CANNOT give any insights, just as P=1, the other extrimity that corresponds to a definite claim that meditation MUST give insights. I suspect we both don't subscribe to any of these extrimities, hence cannot assign them as valid values to translate our position. Hence the rest of the conclusion follows.

Quote:

Yes, I know you think meditation is the best place to begin

You got it wrong. I said, I share your agnostic position and it ( the agnostic attitude) is the best place to begin meditation (aka exploration)

JL,
Thanks for the feedback.

0 Replies

Last things first, if I may:

blueSky wrote:

Quote:
Yes, I know you think meditation is the best place to begin
You got it wrong. I said, I share your agnostic position and it ( the agnostic attitude) is the best place to begin meditation (aka exploration)

You are absolutely correct, BlueSky...I did misread your comment.

I apologize for not being more careful.

Quote:

Quote:
NowI pointblank DO NOT KNOW if religionscriptureor meditationCAN GIVE ANY INSIGHTS INTO THESE UNKNOWN. I also do not know that religion, scripture, or meditation CANNOT give any insights into these unknowns.

I too share that view. And that doesn't mathematically translate into P=0. Again, you don't have to take my word for it. You can find out for yourself. Just a math rule.

I never said it did. This is a hypothetical, BlueSky.

The question simply asks...If one of the values in the equation you offered happens to be zerodoes the conclusion you derived from your mathematical manipulations hold?

And let's stop the bullshyt, BS...because IF one of those values is zero...it does change the conclusion.

I was hoping you had the integrity and sense of honor to simply acknowledge that...but obviously I was wrong.

Quote:

P=0 is the extremity corresponding to a blind assertion that meditation CANNOT give any insights

No it is not...and I have explained this a couple of times now...but you are either too thick headed or too stupid to understand. I'll let you decide which.

We are not talking about "insights"...we are talking about insights into the REALITY of existence.

Now for whatever reasons...you want to blindly assert that meditation MUST come up with some insights into that REALITY.

I think you are full of soup on that assertion...and I defy you to defend how you can KNOW WITH CERTAINTY that meditation will reveal something...anything...about the REALITY of existence (or if you prefer, I defy you to defend how anyone can KNOW WITH CERTAINTY that meditation WILL NOT reveal something about the REALTIY of existence.)

It is my guess that neither can be known with certainty...and that your insistence that P=0 is an impossibility is nothing more than a combination of blind, baseless guesswork coupled with arrogance and stoneheadedness.

Quote:

I suspect we both don't subscribe to any of these extrimities, hence cannot assign them as valid values to translate our position.

I suspect no matter what we "both subscribe to"...one of us...namely me...is not willing to make a stupid guess that one extremity is impossible...and to stick to that silly guess as though it were truth personified.

Quote:

Hence the rest of the conclusion follows.

No, the rest of the conclusion doesn't...but like I said earlier...you are either too thick headed or too stupid to understand.

I certainly am enjoying discussing this with you, though, BS. Do continue!

0 Replies

Truth and Language

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know