|
|
Thursday, June 30
Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: The art of rational thinking: Part IV
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Thu 30 Jun 2005 04:48 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 IV
[deleted materials]
[050624 djs continues] 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?
[050628 cg] YES! Be free of all beliefs, models and systems!
[050628 djs] You have said it best, ‘be free of all …’ But freedom has its responsibilities. The one cannot exist without the other. To simply 'be free' is to place self above others. I am not here to participate in the purity of that luxury. I am here for a reason. I am here to verbalize an expanded view of reality in order to provide one of many stepping stones which leads to the ability of our species and leads to the ability of ourselves as individuals to construct a more tolerant, less violent, evolving species … This is not egotism speaking. Everyone has a purpose and everyone is capable of ‘knowing’ their purpose through the process of ‘listening’/meditating if they are willing to take the time to so so.
[050624 djs continues] 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.
[050628 cg] Please, I agree - G-d does not make junk! How could we be 'junk', we're made of G-d. We are not separated from G-d by a hair, an atom, a quantum moment, and not by a feeling or a thought!We are not 'junk'; that we are fragile and temporary gives us value, makes us precious and worthy of care.And I agree - nothing is lost! How could we be lost to G-d, we're made of G-d. We are not separated from G-d by a hair, an atom, a quantum moment, and not by a feeling or a thought!We may sometimes lose our awareness of G-d, but G-d never loses us.
[050628 djs] I agree with what it is you say, except for two concepts: The first, where you suggest we ‘simply cease to be’ for such a concept implies ‘something is lost’ and the second, where you suggest ‘nothingness’ does not exist.
[deleted materials]
Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: The art of rational thinking: Part III
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Thu 30 Jun 2005 04:37 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 IV
[deleted materials]
[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.
[050627 cg] I have stated that there is no self ('eternal soul') and that things, including persons, arise and pass away. I have not stated or implied that this follows from 'Existence simply is.' It is the nature of things that they are composite and dependent on conditions; hence their lack of self and their temporariness.
[050628 djs] But if as you say ‘you arise and pass away’ both in the physical and the non-physical sense, then you ‘cease to be’ and is this in essence the same as ‘not having been’ once you ‘pass away’? Is this not a form of ‘something is lost’ as opposed to ‘nothing is lost’?
[deleted materials]
Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: The size of G-d: Part III
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Thu 30 Jun 2005 04:34 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 IV
[deleted materials]
[050621 cg] 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.
[0506XX cg] To summarize your model:Omnipresence incorporates consciousness and non-consciousness. The Unmanifested incorporates presence and non-presence. The Whole of Reality incorporates The Unmanifested and 'the whole as a non-duality'.I might re-state that as, G-d transcends duality and non-duality.
[050628 djs] ?????
[deleted materials]
Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: Re: Self and the lack of self: Part V
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Thu 30 Jun 2005 04:30 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.
Re: Self and the lack of self: Part V
[deleted materials]
[050621 djs] I am not 'claiming truth'. I am simply analyzing the vast libraries of humanity in the attempt to understand the whole of reality and the role we, you and I, have to play within such a reality.
As for your aphorism: 'We all claim Truth and we are all true.' Let us hope this is not the case since the statement implies 'relative moralism' is valid. Is this what you are suggesting?
[050626 cg] No, not at all.
[050628 djs] Are you suggesting there is no such thing as ‘universal truths’, truth that is not based upon ‘perceptions’?
[deleted materials]
[050621 djs continues] The questions I have directed towards you are no less unsettling to you than they are to those of my religious leaning.
[050626 cg] No, your questions have not been unsettling, not at all.
[deleted materials]
[050619 cg] My analysis is of my beliefs and understanding, not Buddhism and it is not based on faith (a belief without evidence). It is based on personal experience and reflection. It is the very lack of faith! You have faith. You have faith that you have a "soul", but can you experience your soul? Can you demonstrate your soul? So your comments regarding faith below may take on meanings that you had not intended.
[050617 djs continues] Now there is nothing 'wrong' with basing one's life upon faith as opposed to 'reason'. In fact faith is a wonderful characteristic of humanity. We have faith in our observations and thus we reach to open the door before entering a room as opposed to walking into the door.
We have faith in our fellow man. We have faith in science. We have faith in the teachings of our religions. We have faith in our ability reason.
Without faith we could not survive.
One must not lose sight of the fact, however, that all people are not 'logical' and not all people are 'reasonable', nor will this ever be true of all people.
What then needs to be established is the trunk of the tree from which all religions, sciences, and philosophies can spring. I would suggest such a trunk can be established using human wisdom/knowledge as the roots from which the trunk emerges and rationality as the soil which anchors the roots.
The trunk is a mutual religious, scientific, and philosophical consensus arrived at through the coordinated analysis of the vast accumulation of human wisdom/knowledge developed by our specie. The trunk provides a common ground upon which the diversity of human opinion can commune and embrace diversity.
[050621 djs] You state: 'So your comments regarding faith below may take on meanings that you had not intended.' Excuse my density but are you referring to something in particular?
[050626 cg] No, not at all, but how odd this is. I am attempting to communicate to you that my life is based on my personal experience and reflection, by which I mean my personal experience of perceptions, feelings, and thoughts, and applying logic and reason; that my life is not based on faith.And I am also hoping that you will comprehend that you are basing your life on faith and that you can 'let go'.
[050628 djs] You confuse me.
[050626 cg] No one owns our perceptions; perceptions are experienced, not possessed or controlled. We experience perceptions, but we do not own our perceptions. How can you possess a perception? How can you control your experiences?
You say no one owns ‘our’ perceptions yet you say perceptions are not possessed. You say you experience perceptions but they are not ‘yours’. Everyone’s perceptions are unique. They all differ. As such ‘your’ perceptions are ‘your’s’ and ‘your’s alone’. In this sense your perceptions are ‘owned’ by you. If you ‘simply cease to be’ as you say, then when you ‘cease to be’ your perceptions cease with your ceasing to be. This fits the concept that ‘something is lost’ as opposed to the concept that ‘nothing is lost’.
As for your comment: ‘And I am also hoping that you will comprehend that you are basing your life on faith…’ I do base my life on ‘faith’. I do not deny that, but having said that I also have enough faith in what it is we observe/science and what it is we are capable of reasoning/philosophy and as such I embrace all three.
I accept the scientific observation that we, individuals, exist and thus I analyze the rationality regarding why it may exist as individuals and having concluded, as you do, that we are of the same substance and essence as G-d, that all individuals should be treated as such.
I accept the scientific observation that the universe may be expanding and thus I analyze the rationalilty regarding just what it is the universe may be expanding into and having concluded the physical is expanding into the non-physical (or contracting from the non-physical) and as such the concept of eternal existence, existence unaffected by time, which is an aspect of the physical, appears to be rational.
I accept the philosophical reasoning regarding the four forms of being: ‘Being’ n. as in the whole of existence/singularity; ‘being’ n. as in the individual existing/multiplicity; being vb. as in ‘the passive state of existing/passive; being vb. as in ‘the active state of existing/action. Having rationalized the four forms of being ‘are’ I not only have ‘faith in’ but understand the interrelationship existing between all four states and from this emerges a rational concept of moral and ethics as opposed to an acceptance of morality and ethics based upon faith alone.
This is metaphysics, observation combined with rational analysis and reasoning, combined with faith, the three in one if you will.
Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: The individuated entity of knowing - Part III
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Thu 30 Jun 2005 04:23 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 individuated entity of knowing - Part III
[deleted materials]
[050617 djs] Again I respect your perception but again I ask: If there is no 'self' then do we speak of an individuals 'desire', an individuals selfishness, an individuals incorrect perception, ... ?
[050619 cg] I do not deny that desires arise and pass away, that perceptions arise and pass away, ... . We call them "our" desires, "our" perceptions, ... because we experience them, but there is no owner (one who possesses and has control), there is no owner of the desires, there is no owner of the perceptions, ... . Our desires, our perceptions, ... arise; we do not command that they occur. Our desires, our perceptions, ... pass away; we do not command that they cease. Our experiences occur and cease without our consent; we are not the owners of our experiences.
[050621 djs] Two questions emerge from your statements: If we do not 'own' 'our' perceptions then who does? And if 'we' are unwilling to own our perceptions than who will?
[050626 cg] No one owns our perceptions; perceptions are experienced, not possessed or controlled. We experience perceptions, but we do not own our perceptions. How can you possess a perception? How can you control your experiences?
[050627 djs] (see my own response 050621) Regarding: No one owns our perceptions … then why are they called ‘our’ perceptions?
Regarding: perceptions are experienced, not possessed or controlled … If we experience perceptions uniquely, if we enjoin new experiencing based upon the personal perceptions we develop than once established who is responsible for the actions we take based upon the perceptions we personally formulate?
Regarding: We experience perceptions ?????? Are you suggesting that perceptions are simply ‘out there’ just as a physical tree is ‘out there’ and as such we as individuals do not formulate what it is we ‘perceive’ but rather we simply experience? Are you suggesting we are not responsible for a perception we embrace or do not embrace?
Regarding: '... but we do not own our perceptions. Again, I say, since perceptions are unique to the individual, if we do not own ‘our’ perceptions’ than who does?
Regarding: How can you possess a perception? ‘Your perceptions’ are just that, yours and yours alone. Others may hold ‘similar’ perceptions but they are only ‘similar’. Are you suggesting two individuals can have the exact same perceptions?
Regarding: How can you control your experiences? Free will allows one to choose one’s path. Now I grant you there are events which occur that one does not control. But I would concurrently suggest there are choices one can make and I would suggest the individual is responsible for the choices they are allowed to make. Are you suggesting that one has no free will?
[deleted materials]
[050619 cg] I do not deny the obvious; i.e., that you and I exist. We are entities. I deny that we have a self (essence or "eternal soul").For example, I do not deny that the chair upon which I sit exists. But if I dissemble the chair into its parts, is there still the chair? Which piece is the chair? Where is the essence of the chair? The chair came into existence and then ceased to exist. We come into existence and then cease to exist. The chair has existence, but no self. We have existence, but no self.If you believe otherwise, then: Examine yourself carefully. Which piece is your "self"? Where is the essence of you; i.e., your soul? Have you experienced your soul?
[050621 djs] Deny what you will, but where does this certainty of absolute denial come from? Is it reason that leads you there? Is it observation that leads you there? Is it believability that leads you there?
[050626 cg] As I have written previously, personal experience and reflection leads me there. By this I mean my personal experience of perceptions, feelings, and thoughts, and my reflection applying logic and reason.
[050627 djs] But what globally accepted observation/measurement/scientific analysis has led you there? What globally accepted philosophical arguments have led you there?
And if there is no list garnered from science and philosophy is it not then a case of, majestic as it may be, faith alone that leads you there?
[deleted materials]
You say: The chair has existence, but no self. I would tend to agree with this but this point is not yet fully understood by science, philosophy, and/or religion.
You then proceed to say: We have existence, but no self. That is your personal 'belief' but it flies in the face of most sciences, most religions, and most philosophies. It is a belief because it is supported by no observations or dialectics.
[050626 cg] As I have written previously, the Truth is approached by personal effort, not by consensus. And it is not a 'belief' because it is supported by observations (my personal experience of perceptions, feelings, and thoughts) and dialectics (my reflection applying logic and reason).
[050627 djs] Regarding your comment: ‘Truth is approached by personal effort, not by consensus …’ I am not suggesting we ‘develop’ truth by consensus. I am suggesting that we can ‘find’ truth through a cooperative effort on the part of science, religion, and philosophy. I am suggesting that there are pure ‘truths’ which we can separate from relative truths.
I am suggesting that we can scatter the hulls of suggested truths into the wind, and leave the kernels of absolute truths in the basket for our observation and examination if we focus the winds produced by religion, science, and philosophy in a common direction passing over the tossed ‘truths’ as opposed to our present method of allowing the winds of religion, philosophy, and science to all whirl around in a random fashion. The process of doing so is called ‘cooperation’. We apply the process to light in science using a tool called a ‘laser’.
As for you constant referral to yourself, ‘my’ personal experiences, ‘my’ feelings’, ‘my’ thoughts, ‘my’ reflections, ‘my’ logic, ‘my’ reasoning,… I grant you these things are important but you and I actually are not discussing ‘you’ nor are we discussing ‘me’ but rather we are discussing issues dealing with ‘our’, ‘humanity’s, all individuals in the universe, all existences outside the universe, … We in essence are tip-toeing around the concept of ‘universals’, tip-toeing around concepts of absolute truths versus individual truths.
This is, in essence, a colossal concept reduced to its most elemental aspects.
As for your suggestion: If you believe otherwise, then: Examine yourself carefully. Which piece is your "self"? Where is the essence of you; i.e., your soul? Have you experienced your soul? I would suggest to you that 'I am my soul/spirit' and 'My soul/spirit is who I am.' I would suggest to you that I am consciousness, consciousness of my experiencing. Symbiotic panentheism supports this perception. I have, therefore, experienced my soul for my soul is who I am.
[050626 cg] You write, "I have, therefore, experienced my soul for my soul is who I am." Since you and your soul are one, this sentence means that your soul has experienced your soul. Yes?What else has your soul experienced that you can share with me?Is it your soul that has been writing to me?
Regarding: ‘Since you and your soul are one, this sentence means that your soul has experienced your soul. Yes?’ I am the composite of my physical essence and my conscious self. I would suggest to you that it is my physical essence that as you say: ‘simply arises and passes away, ceases to be’. I would go on to suggest it is my conscious knowing/my soul if you prefer which does not ‘cease to exist’.
Regarding: ‘What else has your soul experienced that you can share with me??’ My soul has experienced the physical through the tool we call the ‘body’.
Regarding: ‘Is it your soul that has been writing to me?’ Yes, using the physical body as its means of transferring my thoughts to you via the manipulation of the internet, this computer, my brain, and my hands.
|
