A life without spirituality.

I am interested, but I was hoping you could perhaps give a short summary. It may take me ages to read up in A2K on the interesting topics, if I were to do what you suggest.

In brief--and very brief--Naj, dualism is the act of breaking up the world (which is inherently a unity) into discrete, metaphysically distinct pieces. We MUST do that for analytical reasons, for the ability to think about our experience, but PHILOSOPHICALLY we should see this process for the delusion--however necessary and useful--that it is. You ARE your experience; you are not a separate "being" within your skull, to whom experiences happen. Descartes gave a kind of legitimacy to this delusion and Plato treated the thoughts we have created (language--words and grammar--and moral values) as constructions of a God that are independent of us, their true creators. Dualism and reification, both cancers on the human experience.

You forgot "in my opinion", JL. I know it's just an oversight, unless your views have somehow been established as definitive, and the publication of them escaped public viewing.

Come come, snood. JL replied to a direct question of mine regarding his viewpoints on Carthesian dualism. In providing me with an answer, there is no need to restate these are personal viewpoints.

No, Snood, that HAS been established definitively. Some people resist such insights with great vigor--that resistance was the basis for the long debates of the past--but I do not consider them mere opinions, nor are they "faiths." And I feel no need to "defend" them. I answered Naj's question, as inadequately as I did, as an "offering", arrogant as that may seem.
I try to exercise the modesty characteristic of A2K. But not this time.
:wink:

The position described by JLN is supported by physical evidence such as "non-locality". (being discussed on http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=77528&highlight=&sid=6bf8ac7cb94ff1809db113df9e2f52df )

The implication for religionists who see themselves as a "separate entity with free will in a world created by a deity" is that such a dualistic separation is a pragmatic but illusory aspect of "consciousness".

To take the analogy of the "moon illusion"* where the moon looks bigger at the horizon than overhead.....this is "caused" by our psychological intolerance of the percept of an infinite gulf over our head and we "see the sky as a flattened dome". Similarly perhaps, the reality of "self" and "object" being two sides of the same coin is
cognitively problematic because it is irrelevant and antithetical to our parochial and ephemeral functioning in which we strive for, or delegate (to a deity), "control of our lives". Furthermore since "successful control" is a central aspect of what in lay terms is called "knowledge" and "explanation", this results in appeals to dualistic common sense scenarios of the type "If I kick this rock it hurts"....which tend only to litter the landscape and obscure a deeper analysis of "knowledge".

With due respect to those, like Snood, who might avoid such depth, their position may be no more tenable than those who would argue that the moon IS bigger at the horizon !
___________________________________________________________

* Photographic images of the moon in the two positions are the same size ruling out an optical explanation. The brain "sees the horizon as further away than the ceiling overhead" and therefore interprets the object to be "bigger" at the horizon.

No...Snood was correct....

...as further reading of JL and Fresco will make clear.

Both JL and Fresco are working in a belief system...a very entrenched belief system...in fact, one they will deny is a belief system...

...and both will assert that it is knowledge as opposed to belief.

It was appropriate that this be pointed out....and your dismissal of it was not.

Thanks Frank,

Your post exemplifies the misconception that non-dualism is "a belief system". Indeed what the non-dualist would say of "the moon illusion" is that it illustrates that "what the moon IS" depends on "what the observer IS". Neither "bigger" nor "same" have any absolute reality. All "reality"(or IS-ness) is context specific or lies in the act of observation. The term "illusion" highlights a mismatch of observational contexts.

If you wish to call ......the position of recognizing that all specific beliefs depend on context ......."a belief system" itself, then you are into the realms of Russell's Paradox. Good luck to you!

Good luck to you, too, Fresco.

I don't think there is anything wrong with belief systems. Hell....they are just guesses about the unknown, albeit, disguised guesses. But there is something "wrong" with folks who insist their belief system is not a belief system.

Non-dualism IS a belief system...whether you recognize it as such or not.

After reading what both JL and Fresco wrote after this post of yours...do you still think they are merely stating personal viewpoints...

...or has it become apparent that they are presenting their belief system as though it were proven fact?????

I've always thought that the interconnection of all things is undeniable, we experience it wih our senses, and with all our extensions. That everything is one unity, and that nothing has existence apart from it, I thought that was an established fact.

Dualism is merely a mind-set. A way to see things, and not neccecarily true.

Frank,

Its old ground.....I've already briefly deconstructed layman's usage of "knowledge" and I certainly have no intention of of going into simplistic "proof"!

Why not have a look at the non-locality reference cited in the weblink above? Its well worth the effort and I would be very pleased to hear your views.

I think this fine folks are making my point for me...and doing a better job of it than I am able to muster.

No Frank, now you misunderstand my post. I just pointed out that the post JL made, was in reaction to my post in which I asked him to give a summary of his own ideas in this area. When he did so, it was not necessary to state again this had to do with his own opinion.

FYI, I don't agree with him on this, as a matter of fact I think you are right in so far this is indeed a belief. I do think it's plausible for mind-body seperation to exist. All believers of a religion must do so as well, at least, if they believe in any form of life after death.

najmelliw

Allow me to offer you Gilbert Ryle's view of "mind" as "a category mistake".
.....naive tourists visiting Oxford having been shown various colleges, libraries etc might ask..."but where is the university ?".

fresco wrote:


Well worth it indeed. I cannot say I understand it fully, that will take more time, but it is certainly interesting.

Cyracuz

Yes...more to the point academic theologians such as Polkinghorne (who is also a Cambridge physicist) have had to take on board these findings, together with those in genetics, and have moved to a position of a "non-interventionist deity". This acknowledges that lay concepts of "causality" "time" "life" and even "existence" are too simplistic to form a basis for "faith."

Does that mean that the basis of faith is non-local?

It seems that way to me, although I am not certain I have understood the concept.

Also, when reading the article I started thinking about all the extra dimensions proposed by M theory, in an attempt to explain everything in one unified theory. The trouble is finding these dimensions.

Seems to the that these levels of non-locality might be some of the dimensions, but as I said, I'm pretty sure my knowledge is somewhat lacking...

The idea is that time and the three dimensions of space exist also as a non-local phenomenon, and that is where they make sense to us.

Right now this idea sounds better in my mind than on the screen. I'd better think on it a bit more before doing anything else about it.

Cyracuz,

Here's an example of how Polkinghorne accommodates non-locality in his efforts to substantiate a "theistic spirituality".

"Do not make common sense the measure of everything but be prepared to recognise aspects of reality in those modes that are intrinsic to their natures, however strange these modes may at first sight seem to be'. There is not one single, simple way in which we can know everything; there is no universal epistemology. …………One way of dealing with these seeming perplexities is to recognise that in the quantum world those little logical words `and' and `or' have different properties to those that they possess in everyday discourse. It turns out that quantum mechanically, you can mix together possibilities, like `being here' and `being there', that we normally think of as being mutually exclusive of each other…………If that is a lesson applying to our knowledge of the quantum world, it would not be altogether surprising if it were a principle that also applied to theology's quest for knowledge of the mystery of God." (From Polkinghorne "Science, Faith and Understanding")

As for "multi-dimensionality" providing "hidden linkages", I have explored this some time ago but it is in essence a form of philosophical reductionism or materialism. I prefer Capra's hierarchy of "nested systems" which leaves open the possibility of "separation" at one level being "unity" at another. Because such "nesting" is open ended it allows (for those who might desire it) the possibility "spirituality" in terms of "ultimate transcendence"