The Problem of Self

RexRed wrote:

How can it be self serving to give thanks to God?

It is self-serving, Rex, to even assume there is a God.

It is self-serving to assume the God does things for which thanks are necessary.

It is self-serving to assume even if the God exists...and even if the God does things for which humans think thanks are necessary...that thanks matter to the God.

In fact, as I said earlier...it is self-serving to say anything about a God...considering the evidence with which you are working.

Quote:

It is self serving to deny God the thanks for a rationalization that you cannot know God so you don't need to be thankful. I am thankful to my parents I do not need to know them (although I do know them) to know I was born like everyone else. It is simple logic to realize that this earth did not just pop out of a balloon.

No it is not simple logic. It is self-serving rationalization. I have absolutely no idea of how "the Universe" came into existence...or in fact, if it "came into existence...or simply always was.

And my guess is...neither do you.

Quote:

The powers that be are logically responsible and though I do not understand them as a god myself I do give a moment of pause and give due respect. Unlike you who chooses to place an obstacle of self rationalization in the way of a compliment to the most high.

"The most high" is a self-serving reference.

I have no idea if there is a "most high" or not...and I cannot give thanks to something I don't even know exists. In any case, I try to live my life as fully and enjoyably as possible...and to be as ethical and moral as I think I can be. If that is not thanks enough to any "most high" that happens to exist...tough.

Quote:

Also... I have an open mind but how open should it be? I choose to not have it so open that my brains fall out.

Assuming you have brains to fall out is a self-serv....

....ahhhh never mind. It was a bad joke anyway.

Frank Apisa wrote:

You also wrote:

Quote:
I concede to God you rationalize to deny God for your own denial of the truth.

You normally don't make much sense...but in this sentence, you truly outdid yourself.

I have absolutely no idea of what you were trying to communicate.

Is English a second language with you?

Look the words up in the dictionary they have meaning the way they are written.

http://dictionary.com[/quote]

Yes, each word has a meaning. But the way you put them together was a waste of a perfectly good sixteen words.

The statement makes no sense...and I cannot even fathom what you were trying to say.

0 Replies

'I don't know' is a necessary and honest place to start 'finding out' for yourself. But does that mean one has to be stuck at that place? Perhaps insisting on staying at a particular position all the time is also a form of belief system. It is the edge of knowing and not knowing, and the edge of believing and not believing, that is hard to stay at.

I like reading K and never got a sense that he 'preaches' any belief system. He even calls such a thing as cage (or crutches, his favorite word) and advocates dropping all of that.

0 Replies

Frank, I'm afraid for you that Bluesky has your number. Everyone, I agreee with blueSky, must start out with an honest "I don't know" and then enquire in order to arrive at a repertoire of opinions (you call them guesses; I call them philosophical conclusions). But I agree with you that we must always maintain a degree of doubt (a degree of acknowledgment that we do not know anything absolutely). But YOU, once you pronounced yourself an agnostic, staked your intellectual identity on that claim, and you have ever since remained CLOSED to any other possibility--all for the sake of consistency with your original pronouncement. That's not something I denounce vigorously because I am (as most people are) guilty of the same failing: consistency is the one of the foundations of our social identities. But at least I do spend some energy struggling against it while you seem to have totally succumbed to it.

0 Replies

Frank, perhaps I should conclude that you do have a philosophy, a philosophy ostensibly of OPEN-MINDEDNESS that is really a philosophy of CLOSE-MINDEDNESS.

0 Replies

Let me save you some effort, Frank, and answer for you.

Oh yeah?

0 Replies

blueSky wrote:

'I don't know' is a necessary and honest place to start 'finding out' for yourself.

Yes it is.

Quote:

But does that mean one has to be stuck at that place?

No it doesn't.

Quote:

Perhaps insisting on staying at a particular position all the time is also a form of belief system.

Perhaps...perhaps not.

Quote:

It is the edge of knowing and not knowing, and the edge of believing and not believing, that is hard to stay at.

Not sure what you mean by that...but as far as I am concerned, "beliefs" in this area....are little more than guesses.

Quote:

I like reading K and never got a sense that he 'preaches' any belief system. He even calls such a thing as cage (or crutches, his favorite word) and advocates dropping all of that.

I like reading K also. But there is no doubt in my mind that he is doing the same thing the Christians do...which is to stack the deck in a way that causes the "devotee" to arrive where he (and they) want them to arrive.

I'm sorry you don't agree with me on this point...but you sound as though you still have an open mind. Consider what I am suggesting when next you read K...and see if there is not enough of that going on to cause you to reconsider.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, I'm afraid for you that Bluesky has your number.

I seriously doubt that. But I understand where he is coming from.

Quote:

Everyone, I agreee with blueSky, must start out with an honest "I don't know" and then enquire in order to arrive at a repertoire of opinions (you call them guesses; I call them philosophical conclusions).

So do I...as long as we continue to call them what they are....guesses.

Quote:

But I agree with you that we must always maintain a degree of doubt (a degree of acknowledgment that we do not know anything absolutely). But YOU, once you pronounced yourself an agnostic, staked your intellectual identity on that claim, and you have ever since remained CLOSED to any other possibility--all for the sake of consistency with your original pronouncement.

Stay away from amateur analysis, JL...you don't do it well.

I state I do not know the nature of existence....and of REALITY...because I DO NOT KNOW THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE AND OF REALITY.

That's it!

Not because I need to be consistent...although I am consistent.

I do not know.

And I do not see enough evidence upon which to base guesses such as the guesses you are making...and disguising as "philosophical conclusions."

This honestly on my part seems to rankle you.

I'd look into that if I were you.

Quote:

That's not something I denounce vigorously because I am (as most people are) guilty of the same failing: consistency is the one of the foundations of our social identities. But at least I do spend some energy struggling against it while you seem to have totally succumbed to it.

What can I tell ya?

I think you are all wet on this...but I simply do not know how to get that through to you.

But as you know, I will not give up discussing these issues with you...and who knows? At some point...it may hit you like a flash. I just hope you are not repairing a roof when it happens.

0 Replies

Oh yeah?

0 Replies

Or disarming a bomb!

0 Replies

Frank, you sound like Socrates, or maybe it's me relating what you said to what Socrates said, "I know nothing."

Anyways, if we really want to prove something, maybe we should set out the ground steps of how we got to that conclusion and see if it makes sense?

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Fresco and Kuvasz, thanks for the Krishnamurti and Perennial Philosophy links. They have long been fountains of inspiration for me. It is a shame that Frank cannot see that what Krishnamurti recommends is quite the opposite of a belief system; he only recommends that one see for himself the nature of his reality, much as the Buddha recommended that each of us be a lantern unto ourselves. Nice thread. I'm no believer in any kind of God, but I appreciate much of what RexRed has stated here.

Thanks JLNobody for the nice comment!

Frank

1 Corinthians 9:24

Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

Ephesians 1:18

The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

Ephesians 3:18-19

17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

JLNobody wrote:
Fresco and Kuvasz, thanks for the Krishnamurti and Perennial Philosophy links. They have long been fountains of inspiration for me. It is a shame that Frank cannot see that what Krishnamurti recommends is quite the opposite of a belief system; he only recommends that one see for himself the nature of his reality, much as the Buddha recommended that each of us be a lantern unto ourselves. Nice thread. I'm no believer in any kind of God, but I appreciate much of what RexRed has stated here.

Thanks JLNobody for the nice comment!

Frank

1 Corinthians 9:24

Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

Ephesians 1:18

The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

Ephesians 3:18-19

17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

"We have met the enemy...and it is us!"

Pogo

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Frank, you sound like Socrates, or maybe it's me relating what you said to what Socrates said, "I know nothing."

Anyways, if we really want to prove something, maybe we should set out the ground steps of how we got to that conclusion and see if it makes sense?

I think I understand where you are coming from, Ray.

I think to suppose we can "prove" anything substantial anytime soon on the issues being discussed here...is highly improbable.

And the fact of the matter is that I regularly argue with theists who are certain the "evidence" points to a God being at the center of things...I regularly argue with atheist who are certain that the "evidence" points to there being no gods...I regularly argue with non-dualist adherents who are certain the "evidence" points to there is a non-duality to existence...I regularly argue with Buddhists who argue that the "evidence" points to blah, blah, blah....

But Ray...the "evidence" truly doesn't point anywhere.

We honestly do not know what existence is.

And my suspicion is that humans trying to fathom the nature of existence based on the "evidence" available to them is like an ant trying to fathom the nature of the universe based on the "evidence" avialable to them.

But since everyone seems to want idle speculation...here is some of mine.

I don't think Rex is truly interested in assessing the "evidence" available...I think he is so uncomfortable with the notion "I do not know" that he wants to accept his evidenceless theistic guesses without question.

I don't think Edgar is truly interested in assessing the "evidence" available...I think he is so uncomfortable with the notion "I do not know" that he wants to accept his evidenceless atheistic guesses without question.

I don't think JL is truly interested in assessing the "evidence" available...I think he is so uncomforable with the notion "I do not know" that he wants to accept his evidenceless non-dualistic guesses without question.

Etc., etc., etc.

I am quite content with "I do not know"...

...and as I have mentioned on many occasions...

...I support as much investigation into what is going on here as we can possible muster. I want science to investigate, propose, challenge, and bring to the "evidence" as much impartiality and study as possible.

Maybe some day we will find some answers.

Until then, I see great danger for humanity in the guesses that are treated the way the guesses I mentioned here are treated.

0 Replies

Frank: What's so bad about using logic, though? I'm not saying that everyone's using logic (mostly because I disagree with them :wink: ) but I think logic is, mostly, the only path to truth. Example: "I think, therefore I am." I'm not saying everyone's argument is on that level of perfection, but it's an example of how things can be proven. As I said in my thread about the nature of truth, there comes a point where, logically, it makes sense to believe in something more. Whether that's the Judaeo/christian God, Buddha, or, my favorite, the collective unconscious, I'll appease your sensibilities and say: I don't know. My path to this conclusion was based on the question of where the universe started. There's a scientific theory that it gave birth to itself through some accident, but then I ask: what caused the accident, etc. I'm on the edge on thinking there is something "divine" but then...what caused the "divine"? Aargh. frank, what are your thoughts on the origins of the universe? (Maybe a different thread would be appropriate.)

To all: Stop attacking each other, please. This is a debate, not a "'you're closeminded' 'you're dumb' 'You're an ignorant layman, stop talking'" fest. There's a difference between arguing another's point and attacking that person.

0 Replies

"To all: Stop attacking each other, please. This is a debate, not a "'you're closeminded' 'you're dumb' 'You're an ignorant layman, stop talking'" fest. There's a difference between arguing another's point and attacking that person."

Well stated, Taliesin. I think it is important that we look for the faults in others (as well as our own) arguments. But it is equally important to look for the positive aspects of others' positions. I've stated my appreciation of the positive side of Frank's, RexRed's and I'm sure your contributions. These debates should not be considered simple combats. When we do that we regress to adolescent levels of behavior.

0 Replies

Thanks, JL, and I should say that I'm not blaming it on any one person, I just think we can stand to calm down every once in a while before we say something un-intellectual. Heh. Adolescents indeed.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

But since everyone seems to want idle speculation...here is some of mine.

I don't think Rex is truly interested in assessing the "evidence" available...I think he is so uncomfortable with the notion "I do not know" that he wants to accept his evidenceless theistic guesses without question.

I don't think Edgar is truly interested in assessing the "evidence" available...I think he is so uncomfortable with the notion "I do not know" that he wants to accept his evidenceless atheistic guesses without question.

I don't think JL is truly interested in assessing the "evidence" available...I think he is so uncomforable with the notion "I do not know" that he wants to accept his evidenceless non-dualistic guesses without question.

Etc., etc., etc.

I am quite content with "I do not know"...

Frank

the same can hold for you...

I don't think you are truly interested in assessing the "evidence" available...I think you are so uncomfortable with the notion "I know" that you wants to accept an "I cannot know" "guess" without question.

"Evidence" is the word...

Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Comment:

A "manifestation" of the spirit is the evidence in the physical realm of the internal reality and presence of the spirit within. When one manifests the spirit they perceive the external evidence of the internal presence of the spirit.

The sprit can be manifested in numerous ways. for example: miracles, faith, knowledge, wisdom, spiritual discernment, healing... These are things "seen" not guessed about. They are produced by believing and the internal reality of the spirit. If there is no spirit within then they cannot come into evidence. When they come into evidence we are witnesses of their power and energy.

They come into the 5 senses realm and they produce fruit. These fruit are evidences that we witness too. Examples of fruit are: love, joy, peace, meekness, kindness, temperance, faith...

It is a little more than guesses... It is something that is willfully acted upon, operated and brought into fruition through supplication and much prayer and thanksgiving, faith and such... The natural person cannot perform these manifestations and cannot know them because the are foolishness to them.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Comment:
Miracles do not just happen out of the blue but they are brought about by people of faith that operate the spirit and communicate with God and God energized the spirit and miracles/manifestations/fruit come into concretion. So Frank, I would have to ignore what I have seen with my eyes/ears/heart in order to agree with you that these are simply just guesses.

One must walk out on the energies and powers of God to see the results. They do not "just happen" and then we attribute them to God... They take "perfect prayer" and "supplication" (supplication is an "act" carried out by the believer) and operating the spirit in order for the manifestation to take place.

Eph 6:18
Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

Comment:

Notice the word in the scripture above... "watching" Watching for what? Well, watching for the answer to the prayers and supplication.

Then after the "manifestation" we witness the fruit that is clearly seen as being attributed to the will and action of God working within his creation. This is not a guess when it is acted upon and the results/fruit are there and clearly seen time after time.

Galatians 5:22+23
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

But since everyone seems to want idle speculation...here is some of mine.

I don't think Rex is truly interested in assessing the "evidence" available...I think he is so uncomfortable with the notion "I do not know" that he wants to accept his evidenceless theistic guesses without question.

I don't think Edgar is truly interested in assessing the "evidence" available...I think he is so uncomfortable with the notion "I do not know" that he wants to accept his evidenceless atheistic guesses without question.

I don't think JL is truly interested in assessing the "evidence" available...I think he is so uncomforable with the notion "I do not know" that he wants to accept his evidenceless non-dualistic guesses without question.

Etc., etc., etc.

I am quite content with "I do not know"...

Frank

the same can hold for you...

I don't think you are truly interested in assessing the "evidence" available...I think you are so uncomfortable with the notion "I know" that you wants to accept an "I cannot know" "guess" without question.

I think it is you, Rex, not assessing the "evidence" available...or you would see why you are able to use it to "show" it more likely there is a God than not....why Edgar can use it to "show" it more likely there are no gods than not...and why others can "show" it more likely there is a non-dualistic world than a dualistic one...and so forth.

"The evidence" is so ambiguous....it does not point at anything.

But you theists will insist it points at a God...and the atheists will insist it points at no gods...and others will insist it points at whatever they want it to point at.

The evidence is going nowhere...and so is your insistence.

We do not know the true nature of REALITY...and we do not know the true nature of existence.

Live with that!

As for the Bible and all your quotes from it...every reasonable assessment of that book has to conclude that it is a collection of myths put together by humans for their own purposes. They were, in effect, INSISTING that their guesses about REALITY and existence are correct...just as you are doing.

If you want to live your life based on what are obviously glorified fairytales...do so.

But if you want to proclaim that kind of nonsense in an Internet forum...you are going to be challenged.

0 Replies

We seem to have moved a long way from "self".

The thesis was that egocentricity was unsatisfactory. Many respondents seem to agree with this and it therefore makes sense for them to explore the relationship between "themself" and "the world", and what constitutes each. Such exploration can only be coherent within some sort of framework, whether it be theistic, nondualistic etc...and the measure of "enhanced satisfaction" obtained thereby gives some degree of person specific credibility to the framework. Some even claim that their "modus" is indicative of "truth" or "knowledge"....and they are correct in as much that both are always in flux.

Now when Frank says "I (he) don't "know", he is merely saying that his "I" remains disatisfied with any particular modus being offered, or even that he is completely satisfied. This seems to have led to ossification of that "I" which is reinforced by the accusation of "self-delusion" to anyone who may be testing or swimming in "other waters"....but can the experience of the swimmer ever be appreciated by the non-swimmer ?... and does not the experience change the experiencer ?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

This seems to have led to ossification of that "I" which is reinforced by the accusation of "self-delusion" to anyone who may be testing or swimming in "other waters"....but can the experience of the swimmer ever be appreciated by the non-swimmer ?... and does not the experience change the experiencer ?

Fresco....where have I ever "accused" anyone of "self-delusion?"

HINT: I have NEVER...in thousands upon thousands of posts here and over in Abuzz...EVER done that.

The question I have asked...which has never been answered is:

How do you know you are not deluding yourself?

I HAVE NO IDEA OF WHETHER OR NOT A PERSON IS DELUDING HIM/HERSELF...and I have never suggested that I do.

If you, Fresco, feel you have been in touch with some greater self...tell me:

How do you know you are not deluding yourself?

ONCE AGAIN...A HINT: You don't.

That does not mean you ARE deluding yourself...just that every indication is that you cannot be certain you are not.

Try to work with what I've actually said and asserted, Fresco. Don't invent things and argue against them.

0 Replies

The Problem of Self

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know