Clyde G. is a respected thinker and Neo-Buddhist who has been acknowledged for his ability to ask questions going to the heart of issues regarding metaphysical models of reality.

Re: Self and the lack of self: Part II

[deleted materials ... ]

[050614 cg continues] ... In any case, here is how I understand the ethical situation: All that is, whether you consider it physical, mental, consciousness, illusion, G-d, whatever Reality is, we are of the same substance.

[050617 djs] And if 'nothingness' exists? Are you suggesting that we are also of the same substance as 'nothingness'?

[050619 cg] You believe in the Nothingness of non-existence. According to you, this Nothingness of non-existence forms a boundary creating you from the substance of G-d as an "entity of consciousness" and separating you from G-d. And you believe you exist in this condition, like a bubble of consciousness, for eternity, forever separated by the Nothingness of non-existence from G-d. So, according to you, your existence is dependent on the Nothingness of non-existence.I believe that G-d is One and omnipresent and that all things (and entities) are of the same substance.You asked, "And if 'nothingness' exists?" If 'nothingness' exists (Whatever that may mean!), then there is also a 'somethingness' (a not nothingness) that exists. G-d is One (the Singularity), the Whole of Reality, and therefore G-d is the substance of both.

[050621 djs] Regarding your observation: ‘You believe in the Nothingness of non-existence.’ It is not that I ‘believe’ in nothingness, I simply state that ‘nothingness’ ‘may’ exist and proceed to analyze the concept on the basis of what religion, science, and philosophy have all given us. My conclusion: Nothingness/non-existence most probably exists.

As for your statement: According to you, this Nothingness of non-existence forms a boundary creating you from the substance of G-d as an "entity of consciousness" and separating you from G-d. This is what I have concluded from analyzing the information with which science, philosophy, and religious all appear to concur.

In terms of: And you believe you exist in this condition, like a bubble of consciousness, for eternity, forever separated by the Nothingness of non-existence from G-d. You speak of ‘my belief’ and again I will state that it is not a ‘belief’ but rather it is a possible conclusion drawn from analysis. I would also add that it appears to provide answers to haunting questions our specie has never been able to answer and as such the ability to answer previously unanswered question simply reinforces the legitimacy of the concepts.

You conclude erroneously: So, according to you, your existence is dependent on the Nothingness of non-existence.I am not saying that my existence is dependent upon the Nothingness of non-existence. Rather I am saying this understanding answers a lot of philosophical paradoxes, religious contradictions, and scientific puzzles which have previously gone unanswered. I am not saying it is an absolute I am simply saying it is not impossible. I am suggesting, based upon scientific observations, religious texts, and philosophical dialectics, it is more probable than improbable that non-existence not only exists but has functionality.

When you state: I believe that G-d is One and omnipresent and that all things (and entities) are of the same substance.That is a religious statement indicated by the words ‘I believe …’. I am not talking religion here. I also have my ‘beliefs’ but I have cast them aside for the purpose of this discussion. Having cast them aside I am now examining them from afar in order to determine what is most probable from an unbiased point of view.

In terms of my question: "And if 'nothingness' exists?" You appear confused about the question when you state: If 'nothingness' exists (Whatever that may mean!), For an understanding of the existence of ‘nothingness’ go to www.panentheism.com and appropriately Google the site.

I understand your confusion regarding nothingness and how it would lead you to make the statement: G-d is One (the Singularity), the Whole of Reality, and therefore G-d is the substance of both. Although I respect your personal belief, I would respectfully disagree with your statement G-d is the substance of both [‘somethingness’ and ‘nothingness’]. If nothingness exists as pure nothingness it would, by definition, be the absence of all including the absence of G-d. To suggest otherwise is to transform nothingness into ‘somethingness’.

[050614 cg continues] ... This means that we are all fundamentally equal and not separate, and is the source of respectfulness and kindness.

[050617 djs] I agree but just because you and I agree upon this statement does not make it a rational statement. The statement is simply a statement based upon the lack of an in-depth discussion of reality.

[050619 cg] I disagree. From my perspective it is quite logical. It is logical that I act respectfully and kindly to me. If you and I are truly the same substance and not separate, then it is logical that I act respectfully and kindly to you for it is an act to me. To do otherwise would be illogical.

[050621 djs] I agree with your position regarding fundamental moral and ethical behavior, however, your perspective is based upon the basic premise you have established ‘I believe that G-d is One and omnipresent and that all things (and entities) are of the same substance. Your position is based upon what it is ‘you believe and I respect that, I respect your ‘belief’. The question, however, is: What arguments other than religious beliefs support such moral and ethical standards? I would suggest the metaphysical model of reality demonstrated by symbiotic panentheism brings together the scientific observations, religious dialogue, and philosophical dialectics to support your and my perceptions of moral and ethical behavior. This is why sp can be labeled ‘a ‘universal philosophy”.

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: Re: Self and the lack of self: Part I

by Daniel J. Shepard on Thu 23 Jun 2005 01:26 AM EDT

Dialogue: A Neo-Buddhist and a Symbiotic Panentheist

Clyde G. is a respected thinker and Neo-Buddhist who has been acknowledged for his ability to ask questions going to the heart of issues regarding metaphysical models of reality.

Re: Self and the lack of self: Part I

[deleted materials]

[050611 cg continues] ... In that case, one may abandon one's search for meaning and be natural in the present.

[050613 djs] Perhaps, I will readily admit such a position is the least stressful of all positions, but the question becomes: Is such a position rational as opposed to being simply a mechanism by which one can find inner peace?

[050614 cg] If, as you wrote above, "it is possible that 'Existence simply is'", then it must be rational to hold the position that 'Existence simply is'.

[050617 djs] Just because something is 'possible' does not make it rational. It is possible the universe could collapse into nothingness tomorrow but is it rational to stand, day after day after day, on the corner carrying a sign stating 'The world is coming to an end'?

I would suggest not. I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with the act, I am simply suggesting that it is not supported by any rational dialectics, direct observations, and/or universal beliefs.

[050619 cg] The question was "Is such a position rational ... ?"; i.e., the question was regarding one's belief or understanding and whether the belief or understanding was rational, not whether any act was rational; so your argument misses the point.And my answer to the question was "If it is possible that 'Existence simply is', then it is rational." If it is possible that Existence simply is, then it follows that the proposition 'Existence simply is' may be true. In a logical Existence not all logical propositions are true, but all illogical propositions are untrue. And if the proposition may be true, then the proposition must be in the logical category, because if it was in the illogical category it would not be possible for the proposition to be true.

[050621 djs] Ah, I think I am beginning to understand what separates us. I begin with the perception that nothing, literally nothing, is impossible. I reject nothing. I embrace all. I then proceed to analyze what is more probable. The more probable, the more rational.

The question then becomes: What determines the degree of probability? We, as individual humans and as a specie, have three tools we use to validate. We as individuals and as a specie use the tool of observability, epitomized by science. We as individuals and as a specie use the tool of reason, epitomized by philosophy. We as individuals and as a specie use the tool of believability, epitomized by religion.

From where I begin – nothing is impossible - the more all three human tools concur with a statement the more probable the statement. Now this does not mean the positions or ‘facts’ to which the three concur are in fact absolute truths, but rather it means that the positions to which the three simultaneously adhere are more probably correct than are the positions supported by none of the three, etc.

If one takes the statement: The sun exploded six minutes ago. This is not observable, it is not reasonable, and although it is almost unbelievable it is possible. The statement therefore is not very probable and thus not very rational, although one cannot say it is absolutely irrational.

As for your statement: "If it is possible that 'Existence simply is', then it is rational." For you, yes. For me, yes, but for me the position is very improbable since it is supported by nothing we observe as a specie and simultaneously it is supported by nothing we reason as a specie. In addition the statement, ‘Existence simply is’, is supported by little we believe universally as a specie.

Having said that I will admit that the position is not irrational, nor is it unbelievable, nor is it incapable of supporting moral and/or ethical foundations, nor is it ‘wrong’, nor is it illogical, nor is it harmful in nature, nor is it a stressful position, nor is it …

The concept, ‘Existence simply is’, however does not suggest any of the negative (negative as in it does not…, not negative as in detrimental) absolutes you suggest. As an example, the statement does not imply nor directly state: ‘Existence simply is and therefore self is not a possibility.’ Etc.

When you state: If it is possible that Existence simply is, then it follows that the proposition 'Existence simply is' may be true. In a logical Existence not all logical propositions are true, but all illogical propositions are untrue. At one point in our history it was considered illogical to think we would ever go to the moon. As history has demonstrated, man has stepped upon the surface of the moon. Thus what was once an illogical proposition, ‘Eventually man will go to the moon’ has been moved from the ‘untrue’ to the ‘true’ column. The result: ‘all illogical propositions are untrue’ may be true in the short run but has been shown to be in error in the long term.

I do not agree with your statement: And if the proposition may be true, then the proposition must be in the logical category, because if it was in the illogical category it would not be possible for the proposition to be true. Symbiotic panentheism would suggest the Buddhistic percepton ‘Nothing is lost’ is correct. Sp would also suggest that nothing is impossible. It is only our ego which suggests that we, limited beings, are capable of stating ‘absolute impossibilities.

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos