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.

The art of rational thinking: Part II

Excuse the verbiage of the below, it deals not only with a dialogue between cg and myself but with reflective thinking.

[050619 cg continues] … 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.

[050621 djs] 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.

[050622 cg] HUH? There is a difference between what is logical and what is probable. Certainly you, as a mathematician, can identify illogical propositions that cannot be true (real).

[050624 djs] No, I cannot. In terms of section ‘A’ in diagram 050605, you are correct. In terms of the remainder of the diagram, the answer is: No, I cannot. Since ‘A’ is only temporary in the physical sense, the answer is not both but rather simply: No, I cannot.

[050619 cg continues] … 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] Nothing is lost and nothing is impossible. It is only our ego which suggests that we, limited beings, are capable of stating 'absolutes'.

[050622 cg] "Nothing is lost". Is that an absolute? "[N]othing is impossible." Is that an absolute? "It is only our ego which suggests that we, limited beings, are capable of stating 'absolutes'." Is that an absolute?

[050624 djs] Ahhh, you got me. They are stated as absolutes and as such are ‘beliefs’, religious in nature. When dealing with metaphysics such statements become a portion of the material from which one proceeds to rationalize which in turn leads to the development of rational concepts such as the development of a rational model of Reality. If one rationalizes using only ‘beliefs’ one obtains religious statements, religious models. Therefore there are other sources of materials one uses in the process of developing universal rational concepts. The other sources of materials are ‘the materials’ developed through observation and measurement, science, and materials developed through reason and dialectics, philosophy.

When one incorporates all three tools, science, religion, and philosophy, one develops concepts which are 'intra' as well as 'inter' universal in nature.

[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.

[050621 djs] No, 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.

[050622 cg] WHAT? You base your very soul on the 'nothingness' you simply state 'may' exist (whatever that means) and you can't imagine it otherwise.

[050624 djs] Oh, I can ‘imagine’ it otherwise, I can ‘imagine’ anything. I have a vivid imagination. That is why I can ‘imagine’ two plus two equals five.

Personally, I ‘believe’ I exist as ‘an entity of ‘self”. But I recognize that as a personal belief. When I speak to others who ‘believe’ I do not exist, I fully understand that is a possibility. I may simply be the product of another entity’s imagination, I may simply be a figment of your imagination. I personally don’t ‘believe’ that to be the case but it ‘is possible’. I do not base my actions on that possibility but it ‘is possible’.

As for ‘basing my very soul on ‘nothingness’, hardly. I take responsibility for my soul and as such I follow my personal beliefs as opposed to following my rational thoughts.

But what then of the model symbiotic panentheism? Do I just toss it away? I would have tossed it away if it had led me to the understanding that relativism was the only rational explanation regarding ethics and morality or if it had led me to the understanding that G-d did not exist. But had it led me there, I would have tossed it away.

But why would I have simply tossed fifty years of thinking away if it had led me to a truth I did not want to find. I would have thrown it away because I have faith, I believe in my heart that ‘Nothing is lost including the individual’, that G-d does not make junk and thus all forms of existence have purpose, that we have free will and are therefore responsible for our actions, that one person’s perception of truth is not as good and everyone elses, that there is such a thing as truth, that we can find a means of remaining unique while enjoying each other’s company, that peace is possible if only we look for the means of achieving it – namely advancing our understanding of Reality.

As such, I set aside all my personal beliefs in search of truth. I did not reject my personal beliefs, I simply set them aside while I searched for truth and surprisingly the metaphysical development of a rational model of Reality which I simply call symbiotic panentheism, led me straight back to religion, all religions, led me to understanding how it is that all the above can be understood through a more comprehensive understanding of Reality. The model of symbiotic panentheism clearly demonstrates the rationality of faith and the significant role faith/religion has to play in the individual’s attempt to accomplish the purpose of their very existence within the physical.

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: The art of rational thinking: Part I

by Daniel J. Shepard on Sat 25 Jun 2005 03:23 PM 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.

The art of rational thinking: Part I

Excuse the verbiage of the below, it deals not only with a dialogue between cg and myself but with reflective thinking.

[deleted materials]

[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 argument.

[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.

[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.

[050622 cg] No, I think you have avoided the point I was making about your argument.And I now understand that you are using the term 'rational' to be a measure of probability, where I am using the term 'rational' as a synonym for 'logical'. Then again you stated that being probable does not make something rational.

[050624 djs] You are correct. I perceive logic and rational thinking to be specific specialty fields within the arena of thinking. (see previous discussion)

As for the degree of probability associated with any particular rational concept/statement, probability runs from 0% to 100%. I hesitate to suggest we, as human and thus by definition limited, have the ability to make a statement which falls specifically into either the 0% or 100% category. A

In addition: I perceive a ‘rational statement’ much as I perceive a piece of art.

In arena of art, one does not begin with a piece of art and then proceed to paint it. One begins with the materials and proceeds to do the painting and the end product is the piece of art itself. Some art is poor. Some are is good. Some art is excellent. Occasionally one has the opportunity to encounter an extraordinary piece of art.

Having said that one is also able to understand that the arena of art is occupied by varies fields of art: paintings, sculptures, …

In the arena of thinking, one likewise does not begin with a rational concept and then proceed to rationalize the concept. One begins with the materials and proceeds to do the rationalizing and the end product is the rational concept itself. Some rational concepts are poor. Some rational concepts are good. Some rational concepts are excellent. Occasionally one has the opportunity to encounter an extraordinary rational concept.

Thus the measure of probability emerges. The more extraordinary the rational concept the more probable the concept.

As art is divided into the sub-arenas of paintings, sculptures, … so to thinking is divided into its sub-arenas of rational concepts, logic, …

[deleted materials]

[050619 cg continues] … And my answer to the question was "If it is possible that 'Existence simply is', then it is rational."

[050621 djs] 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 negatives absolutes you suggest. The statement does not imply nor directly state: 'Existence simply is and therefore self is not a possibility.' Etc.

[050622 cg] HUH? I stated: Existence simply is and therefore Existence has no meaning or purpose. I did not suggest that the proposition suggested any other "negative absolutes". Nor did I suggest that 'Existence simply is' implies that "self is not a possibility".

[050624 djs] In terms of your last sentence: “Nor did I suggest that 'Existence simply is' implies that "self is not a possibility". Perhaps I am in error. I had thought you previously stated that ‘self ceases to be’. If self ‘ceases to be’ than self, in essence, ‘is not’ for in essence there is only ‘the now’ (see section ‘C’ diagram 050605) and once ‘self ceases to be’ there is no self, ever for it has ceased to be.

In terms of your statement: “I stated: Existence simply is and therefore Existence has no meaning or purpose. I did not suggest that the proposition suggested any other "negative absolutes". I am using the concept of ‘negative’ in the pure sense not the judgmental sense. Thus ‘it is not possible’ becomes the opposite, the negative, of it is possible.

Thus ‘Existence has ‘no’ meaning’ is the opposite or negative of ‘Existence has meaning’.

The statement, ‘Existence simple is’, is an ‘absolute as compared to ‘Existence might simply be’ which is a statement of possibility as opposed to an absolute statement. ‘Existence has ‘no’ meaning’ is both an absolute statement and a ‘negative’ which gives us a ‘negative absolute’. The same applies to ‘self is not a possibility’, which is both a negativism and an absolutism thus a ‘negative absolute’.

A ‘negative absolute’ in this discussion is not intended to be a criticism nor is it intended to reach into the realm of emotion or personal attack.

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: The size of G-d: Part II

by Daniel J. Shepard on Sat 25 Jun 2005 03:13 PM 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.

The size of G-d: Part II

[deleted materials]

[050616 cg] How do you distinguish or what is the difference(s) between Total Consciousness (C) and Omnipresence (D)?

[050617 djs] We are limited beings and to suggest that 'consciousness' is the ultimate of existence is anthropomorphic and considering the 'size' of the universe and the 'size' of total consciousness this perception is most probably erroneous.

[050621 cg] Are you implying that I suggested that "'consciousness' is the ultimate of existence"? My question was not intended to suggest any such concept, but to understand your position as presented in your diagram.

[050624 djs] No, you have been quite clear that is not what you think. When I stated ‘…to suggest …’, I was not referring to you but rather I was stating ‘… to suggest …’ I will try to be more explicit in the future.

[050617 djs continues] It would be more honest, therefore to suggest: There may be more to 'presence' than consciousness. This 'presence' may be beyond our comprehension as 'conscious' beings. Therefore Omnipresence is depicted as being neither less nor equal to consciousness but rather potentially more inclusive than simple consciousness. Thus section 'D' takes on the appearance of being 'larger' than section 'C' but smaller than 'E'.
[050621 cg] It is my understanding that in such diagrams when a smaller figure is placed within a larger figure it implies that there is another smaller figure that also exists within the larger figure; i.e., if A is placed within Z, then there is a not-A that also exists within Z; otherwise A would be identical to Z.Then it would follow that, according to your presentation:If Total Consciousness is within Omnipresence, then there is a 'not-consciousness' (something other than consciousness) that exists within Omnipresence, so that Omnipresence incorporates both consciousness and not-consciousness.And if Omnipresence is within The Unmanifested, then there is a not-presence (something other than presence) that exists within The Unmanifested, so that The Unmanifested incorporates both presence and not-presence.And if the Whole of Reality contains The Unmanifested, then logically either a not-The Unmanifested (something other than The Unmanifested) exists within the Whole or Reality or The Unmanifested is identical to the Whole of Reality.You have identified the not-The Unmanifested as the 'plus one'; i.e., "'Plus one' deals with the whole as a non-duality."Is this so, according to your understanding?
[050624 djs] Hmmm, well now, let me think. Yes, I think that is so. I hesitate because I am not sure whether or not ‘the whole of Reality’ and ‘the nothingness’ would be considered as a ‘Ying and Yang’ situation to a Buddhist.

Putting that aside, in terms of how I personally perceive the model of symbiotic panentheism (perceived from the point of view of a novice to other religions, perceived strictly from a metaphysical point of view) I would say: Yes, you are correctly stating what the model of symbiotic panentheism demonstrates.

Note: The interesting thing about symbiotic panentheism is that it is somewhat fluid and can be interpreted somewhat differently by different religious groups. For example, terminology may vary just as the word for G-d varies from religion to religion.

[deleted materials]

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos