Monism or Pluralism
I suggest that the Whole (Cosmos) is primary over its parts, that there is One (holistic). This is Monism.
Having the parts to be primary over the Whole (Cosmos) is Pluralism (separation).
The key could be that the Whole (Cosmos) is entangled with itself.
(I think Gnomon likes this approach.)
Having the parts to be primary over the Whole (Cosmos) is Pluralism (separation).
The key could be that the Whole (Cosmos) is entangled with itself.
(I think Gnomon likes this approach.)
Comments (46)
Interesting claim. How would you demonstrate this?
Ways of Worldmaking (1978)
This is so interesting. I like how you explained it as the Cosmos is entangled itself. It is hard to understand a vast topic like Cosmos and its varieties.
I think this is where it coincides all the possible debates: philosophy, physics, mathematics, etc... We put basic vocabulary to this vast topic saying "whole Cosmos" as monism/primary and then all the parts as pluralism as you explained previously.
How this can be explained is not logically, only experientially through yogic meditation.
That's my position. Maybe it's one you've never heard, or maybe you think it's ludicrous.
Share it with your friends.
Gnomon likey! :grin:
My worldview is indeed Monistic & Holistic, as opposed to Pluralistic & Reductive. But that all-is-one philosophy takes different forms depending on certain assumptions and interpretations. For example, Spinoza's "substance monism" implies that our physical world is the body of God's mind. But, he didn't pretend to know what God thinks about this imperfect & ailing body. Holism implies that all parts of the world system are "entangled", or otherwise integrated, into a single functional entity. What is the "Force" of Entanglement anyway? FWIW, I call that organizing power : EnFormAction.
But I don't know how to prove that theory empirically or mathematically, unless some quantum entanglement theorists were interested in deriving a philosophical ontology along the lines of Spinoza's worldview. Would they call that Cosmic System "GOD", or just "our-local-bubble-in-the-multiverse"? My question is whether such a God would only relate to & communicate with Her internal parts --- for example, by exchanges of Enformation (Energy)? Or, are there other god-like systems (cosmoses???) out there for our God to commune with. I don't have a clue. Do you? :joke:
Monism is a philosophical and cosmological stance which posits an ultimate Unity of all things, and that all apparent differences, distinctions, divisions and separations are ultimately only apparent or partial aspects of an ultimate whole.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Monism
Holism :
the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts. Holism is often applied to mental states, language, and ecology.
Note -- "interconnection" = entanglement???
The most distinctive aspect of Spinoza's system is his substance monism; that is, his claim that one infinite substance—God or Nature—is the only substance that exists.
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/
The Meaning of Quantum Holism :
If one endorses quantum holism, one is committed to a minimal requirement for an ontological interpretation of quantum theory: a system has those properties at a given time of which its state is an eigenstate. If one accepts this minimal requirement, one has to acknowledge that entanglement extends as far as the whole of matter at the level of quantum systems.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-1787-8_8
The only problem with that notion is nailing-down the definition of "entanglement" in this cosmic context. Normally, the term is limited to quantum scale situations. Yet, in physicist Frank Wilczek's article below, it seems that Entanglement is a function of knowledge. So we can assume that it's somehow related to consciousness & awareness, specifically incomplete knowledge. Which leaves the actual "mechanism" as a mystery.
But, for those whose worldview includes a Cosmic Mind, those interconnections & interrelationships could be compared to the network of neurons that meld a tangled mess of wires into a whole system of unitary awareness. Instead of physical wires though, I would guess that the connections are via meta-physical Enformation channels (similar to energy) transporting bits & bytes of Information (potential knowledge).
Ironically, Goedel's Incompleteness theorem says that there is an inherent imperfection in Mathematical Logic, at least within an imperfect world of limited space-time. So, the Global Mind of the physical world may not be as omniscient as an eternal deity. But that does not rule-out a more perfect meta-physical Programmer, as postulated in my thesis. But, I'm just riffing on your theme here, so don't hold me to this guesswork. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a Global Mind. :joke:
Entanglement Made Simple : Entanglement is often regarded as a uniquely quantum-mechanical phenomenon, but it is not. . . . Entanglement arises in situations where we have partial knowledge of the state of two systems.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428/
A Quantum Entanglement Revenge
[i]I'm just a miserable bunch of quantum field excitations.
A bag of bags of quarks. And so's my truck.
I was entangled with a gal, but things went South.
We're still ensnared— unmeasured and immeasurable
with no divorce.
Dark energy, dark matter, dark thoughts--
I'll go to the dark side and jump in a black hole.
That'll teach you, bit.... [loss of signal][/i]
___JV Beaupre
What is a whole, a One, without a boundary? Without a beginning and an end? It’s not whole or one at all. Without the characteristics of finitude there is no such whole. Therefor there is no whole, no one, and the universe is many.
I found this pdf: http://www.jonathanschaffer.org/monism.pdf
I've saved a copy of the article to peruse when I have time. But my sense of the whole/part priority question is related to the polarized Top-Down versus Bottom-Up worldviews. Bottom-Up, as in Darwinian evolution, builds-up the whole from aggregation of parts. But the Top-Down view prioritizes the whole : e.g. a unitary Creator -- who exists as an undivided singular eternal whole, but then, in order to create a complex space-time world from its own Substance, begins to divide into smaller parts, that add-up to complexity within unity -- like an ovum turning into a bubbly blastocyst, and eventually into a enformed fetus. Since both processes can be found in reality, my worldview is based on the BothAnd principle. So, whether you see parts or wholes, monism or pluralism, depends on your personal perspective.
Regarding the mechanism of Entanglement that welds the manifold universe into a singular System, here's an article that reports : "New research indicates the whole universe could be a giant neural network" The implication of that assertion is that our Cosmos is like a giant brain. But the article is not about New Age notions of Holism, which views the world system as a Cosmic Mind. Instead, it's about a new attempt to construct a viable Theory of Everything : the Whole Story.
However, the author raises this cautionary caveat : "The root problem with sussing out a theory of everything – in this case, one that defines the very nature of the universe itself – is that it usually ends up replacing one proxy-for-god with another. Where theorists have posited everything from a divine creator to the idea we’re all living in a computer simulation, the two most enduring explanations for our universe are based on distinct interpretations of quantum mechanics". The notion of the universe as a big brain, composed of many neurons, is a pretty good concrete metaphor for the abstract notion of Monism. Yet, of course, "it's just a theory". :nerd:
https://thenextweb.com/neural/2021/03/02/new-research-indicates-the-whole-universe-could-be-a-giant-neural-network/
The substance theory of Aristotle underlies his entire philosophy. Substance theory is the belief that substances are the ultimate things in the universe. The universe at rock bottom is not made up of elementary particles but substances. This is completely different from our modern view of the world.
https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/aristotles-substance-theory/
Holism : Philosophy
the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts. Holism is often applied to mental states, language, and ecology.
Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ? what’s true for you ? depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Holistic..
[i]Life can exact a heavy toll
Unless you pay heed to your whole;
Your mind, your body and your soul![/i]
___Damian Murphy
In physics, the well proposed multiplicity from unity is thought to be of covariant quantum fields' excitations acting as particles that, although secondary and temporary, can last last quite a while due to their quantum unit charge or quantum unit strength, and are thus then able to form more complexities, on up to minds. Seems that something in the unity needs to be responsible for what particular energy levels got chosen to make the 'particles' that would work or else they are the default. Each level seems to 'code' for the next one, from particles to a few atomic elements to stars to higher atomic elements to molecules to cells, to life, to consciousness.
In my layman's philosophical thesis, what's "responsible" for initiating the "multiplicity from unity" sequence of events is Intention. That hypothesis is not based on any quantum field theories, but on a general comprehension of how a causal Agent (the unity) is responsible for its effects. My understanding of Quantum Theory is superficial. I know just enough to be dangerous. :cool:
Intention : Purpose, inclination, motive
Motive : Does God have emotional urges, like humans, that overwhelm the rational mind? Or does G*D create for no practical reason? My guess is that eternal/infinite, omniscient/ omnipotent deity lacks only one thing : imperfection. So creating space-time worlds may be the only way to experience change, desire, love, need, etc. In a state of perfection there is nothing to do . . . except create.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page60.html
Note -- "God" = traditional anthro-morphic deity ; "G*D" = hypothetical abstract integral Unity (ALL; Whole) from which our multiplex world emerged in the Big Bang.
I have read some of Wilbur's intriguing books, but not that one. I tend to agree with most of his critique of Modernism & Scientism. But, I'm not personally inclined to go to the opposite extreme of New Age mysticism. Empirical Science is imperfect and incomplete, but it has the virtue of avoiding imaginary mystical magical answers to mundane pragmatic questions. So, my position is somewhere between those polar oppositions. :cool:
I reject New Age philosophy also, but I think it's closer to the truth than mere naive empiricism. I don't see how a mystical answer is somehow "imaginary."
Speaking of complexity's progression, Julian Barbour as it that complexity is literally time, rather than of its opposite of disorder continuing on.
How it is that the higher minds of higher human beings will likely come about in the future if there is already a Highest Mind at the beginning?
This appears to be a problem, for the impossible 'Nothing' cannot be outside the One, making the One having to be of 'Infinite' extent, which is another problem, perhaps, since 'Infinite' is never complete and accomplished, leaving an impossible One, with all then being relative, if that's the right word.
Some dictionary sites give "imaginary" as a synonym for "mystical". But my primary concern for mystical worldviews is the synonym "occult". Labeling some aspects of the world as "occult", or "taboo" is a traditional tactic of religious leaders to "pull the wool" over the eyes of their followers. It implies that your puny human reasoning is incapable of learning some truths. Hence, you must take on faith that your guru or mystical guide has a direct line to God or to the Akashic Field.
Long ago, I learned that Faith is a leash for "leading people around by the nose", so to speak. So, I don't trust anyone who claims to know something that is not accessible to mundane observation and reasoning (e.g .the scientific method). But, I also don't take the word of scientific priests for "truths" that are so far over my head that I have to take them on Faith. "Naive empiricism" is also a form of child-like Faith in the preternatural objectivity of scientists . Sophisticated Skepticism is like an amulet for warding-off the evil spirits of Occultism.
A comical example of New Age faith in mystical abilities is the absurd phenomenon of "Yogic Flying". Maharishi assured his Transcendental Meditators that his techniques could give them magical powers, such as the ability to fly. So, they took his folk tale literally, and sincerely tried to prove their faith by "flying" while in the cross-legged position. What you can learn from this trivial example is that Faith can lead people to do things that are "beyond reason", such as handling poisonous snakes during church services.
FWIW, I like some elements of Eastern philosophy, but most Eastern and New Age religions are just as manipulative of naive minds as Western religions. :cool:
Naive Empiricism refers to the belief that scientist should try to be as objective and neutral as possible when studying something. Scientists should approach a problem with no preconceived expectations or assumptions which have not been previously studied and justified using the scientific method.
http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/na/Naive_Empiricism
Occult : [i]supernatural, mystical, or magical beliefs, practices, or phenomena. . . .
cut off from view by interposing something.[/i]
___Oxford Dictionary
Note -- to occult (verb) is to cut off from the light --- of reason.
International Yogic Flying Competition :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUnxnuUVEOs
Well, that's hugely mistaken.
Quoting Gnomon
That's also hugely mistaken. The word mystical originally comes from the Greek word for mystery (mysterion) and heavily related to the Greek word for "initiate" (mystikos). It has no connotation of something imaginary. If you mean occult in the sense of "hidden" which is what the Latin word means, I suppose thats valid. But not in the sense of occult philosophy or occult spirituality, in that New Age, demonic, Luciferian sense.
Quoting Gnomon
Well, you cannot remove your ego by yourself, that's why a guru is there. To help guide you out of your own egoic delusion. The word guru in Sanskrit is synonymous with the word educator. Educare meaning, "to draw out" Gu-ru meaning, "to draw one out of darkness into light" in Sanskrit.
Quoting Gnomon
So do you trust things like the multiverse, or quantum mechanics which is not accessible to mundane observation? I do.
Quoting Gnomon
Alright, so you don't hold to Scientism, or to brute empiricism, what exactly do you hold to? Pyrrhonian Skepticism?
Quoting Gnomon
Yeah, Maharishi is one of many many many of the fake gurus "flying" around during Kali yug.
Quoting Gnomon
Good. Well, our philosophy is indistinguishable from the religion. Since the Sages of the Vedic Scriptures claim they received this from God-realized Sages. New Age religion is not Vedic. It's based on Neo-Vedanta, which isn't Vedanta at all.
I don't deny there's a lot of fraudgurus going around, but that doesn't mean that all gurus are false, in the same way that just because there are many false positions doesn't mean there are no true positions. If we compare these fraudgurus' views and teachings to what the Vedic Scriptures define as a true guru, and we see if they have the proper credentials and qualifications to be a true guru (Satguru) then majority of these fraudgurus (such as Sadguru) fall infinitely short. Even they'll admit, openly and publicly, that they are fraudgurus.
Quoting Gnomon
No, naive empiricism is the view that nothing can be known apart from what our immediate sense-perception picks up. Also, that our sense perception picks up true knowledge.
The Vedic Scriptures give us many many credentials a true guru (Satguru) must have.
But one obvious way to tell, one way that disqualifies 99% of fake gurus right out the gate, is if they're selling a "new" meditation method, or if they're founders of a "new" movement.
We have the original sampradayas, the original meditation method in Shree Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. So anyone selling you any "new" method or a movement, is a fraud. That disqualifies the majority of them right out the gate.
There are plenty other credentials one could use, but that one alone is sufficient in the vast majority of cases. It deals with Sadguru, Maharishi, most of these New Age frauds by itself.
The same way you accept anything as truth. You a) rely on the experts, the authorities who know this field and b) do the experiment yourself.
Is there any other way you have of finding out the truth?
I'll preface by admitting that, like Socrates, I know nothing about such preposterous questions. But that doesn't stop me from guessing and speculating, for my own amusement. I don't expect anyone to take my guesstures as gospel truth. However, I have developed a personal worldview to take the place of the gospel of my youth. That idiosyncratic view of the world is Enformationism. And it's a mish-mash of philosophical bits & bytes from ancient history to modern futurism.
When I outgrew my religious indoctrination, I didn't immediately become an all-knowing Atheist, but an inquiring Agnostic. That's because Atheism ignores some personally important philosophical questions, such as "why is there something instead of nothing?". A typical evasive answer is "there has always been something. But the best scientishish hypothetical answer(s( to date is(are) the various versions of Multiverses or Many Worlds. So, I read those conjectures as fiction, not fact. Meanwhile, I am currently growing my own personal fictional narrative from a seed of Information/Quantum Theory. And the starting point begins before there was any material thing, hence pre-Big Bang. That Cosmic Origin is what I call "The Enformer", or "Cosmic Programmer", or sometimes as "G*D", for those who don't grok my made-up terms.
Like the Multiverse, The Enformer is assumed to be eternal & infinite. But, since my worldview is Information-based instead of Materialistic, my G*D is envisioned as a disembodied Mind. Beyond that axiomatic starting-point, I can only use limited logic to infer what other attributes the First Cause of our world must have, in order for our observed causes & effects to be what we see. For example, I don't know if the Whole Mind is conscious like all the many particular mini-minds we encounter in human-to-human communication. All I know is that the Enformer must, following Aristotelian Logic, have the Potential for Consciousness. Consequently, I don't model the Great Mind as an anthro-morphic Person, but as merely infinite Potential, for which anything is possible.
That prologue out of the way, I can refer you to some of my fictional stories, devised to explain to myself how the world we know & love came to be what it is, and where it might be headed. At this point in the evolution of the original Singularity, assumed to be programmed with EnFormAction, the human mind seems to be the penultimate form of consciousness. Yet, I can only speculate on what forms of being & knowing will emerge in the future. And my guesstures on such topics can be found under the heading of Intelligent Evolution, or Enformationism, or Cosmic Progression, etc.
To answer your question more directly : the highest mind so far in evolution is only slightly higher than that of a spineless octopus. So we have a long way to go --- to come close to being space-time gods. Teilhard deChardin concocted a semi-plausible story of what the climax of evolution (Omega Point) would be when the material world becomes so perfect that it achieves something like god-hood. That's similar to my own speculative fiction, except that my G*D is not the Christian Logos. And I don't think the part-minds will ever touch the asymptote of the Whole Mind. Does that answer your question??? :chin:
Guesstures : my made-up word for postulations based on best guesses.
The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Introduction to Enformationism : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html
Intelligent Evolution : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf
Cosmic Progression from Ø to ? : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html
This question is already dealt with in Upanishadic philosophy. Our minds, our true selves, Atman is Brahman. That is, our True Self is Divine. Tat Tvam Asi.
However, many misunderstand this to mean that we are god, or we are gods. This is not accurate.
We are Brahman, but we are not Parabrahman. We are Atman, but we are not Paratman. There's a Supreme Mind underlying our minds.
That's fine for everyday life, where your getting it right or not is mostly not that critical. With most scientific knowledge, it is not possible to "do the experiment yourself" so we have to rely on the peer reviewed consensus.
When it comes to everyday matters you can often find out what is the case for yourself but it's not always possible. It's not even possible to know whether there really are true gurus (enlightened beings) at all; it really remains a question of faith at every level.
Anyone who believes themselves to be enlightened and able to pass on their knowledge to others could well be deceiving themselves. But if going down such a path makes you happy, then why not, eh?
I don't follow the Hindu religion, but I do occasionally refer to some sublime Indian Philosophical concepts in describing my own worldview. For example, what I call "G*D", or the "Programmer" in my modernized philosophy, is similar to the abstract notion of Brahman : "creative principle which is realized in the whole world". Unfortunately, the Hindu religion has dumbed-down (anthropomorphized) that abstraction into a mere god among gods -- to make it palatable for the masses. Likewise, Hindu "Atman", and Christian "Soul", is what I call in my non-religious worldview : the human Self-image. :smile:
That's just something you claim. Why is your opinion the one I should take?
Quoting Janus
You can say that about anyone or anything. But if you're a reasonable person, then you keep an open mind and you try to find the truth as best you can, rather than just saying "I can't know anything, it's all an illusion, everything is just a deception in my head." That's laziness.
Programmer is roughly what we call God. The Supreme Controller.
Quoting Gnomon
I don't see what you mean. I don't think any of it has been dumbed down at all.
I didn't say you should take my opinion, I said there is no way of knowing whether there are true gurus. If there were such a way you could demonstrate that there are or are not true gurus. So it remains
a question of faith like any other religious belief.
Quoting Dharmi
I don't think that applies to anyone or anything. If someone claims to be a master musician, mathematician or athlete etc., whether or not they are deluding themselves is pretty much demonstrable. Life is short, so avoiding any path the verity of which is not at all demonstrable is simply being prudent, not being lazy.
Unless of course I find great joy or comfort in pursuing such a path, in which case my pursuing it would be based simply on my good feeling about it; which is fine. But intellectual honesty demands acknowledgement that it remains a question of faith, not of knowledge.
There is a way you can demonstrate it. You do the experiment, and you attain self-realization and God-realization.
Quoting Janus
All of this is just supposition.
Quoting Janus
Quoting Janus
No, it's 100% a question of experiential knowledge. If you do the experiment and it works, then it works. If it does not, then it does not. Blind faith has nothing to do with it.
Lord Brahma is not the same as the philosophical conception of Brahman. The correct personage who is the embodiment of Brahman is Lord Krishna.
[quote=Narayana Upanishad]The seat of Narayana is the lotus of the heart. The knowledge of Narayana alone is the highest form of wisdom. Sri Krishna, the son of Devaki, who is the vanquisher of Madhu is the ultimate Brahman. He alone resides in all beings. He is both the causeless and the cause of everything.[/quote]
Don't worry about it. Religious Thinkers and Philosophers often "talk past each other ". :cool:
Talk Past Each Other : Talking past each other is an English phrase describing the situation where two or more people talk about different subjects, while believing that they are talking about the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_past_each_other
No, true philosophy is mystical union with the Absolute. As it was with all of the ancient philosophers, those we have records of, and those we do not. Modern philosophy is nothing more than philodoxy, different opinions clashing with other opinions.
The point is that it cannot be demonstrated to any one else. Of course you are free to believe whatever you like.
Quoting Dharmi
It's not supposition; expertise or lack of it can be demonstrated to anyone with an open mind in many, many fields, such that it would be clear if someone were deceiving themselves or trying to deceive others. This is simply not the case with so-called spiritual teachers.
Quoting Dharmi
You might become convinced that the spiritual experiment has worked and you have become enlightened. But you cannot demonstrate that to anyone else, and it is always possible that you could be deceiving yourself.
The very idea that there is "experiential knowledge" of the type you are claiming cannot be demonstrated in any way that an unbiased person would have to accept, so it remains a matter of faith. But as I said, there's no shame in that provided you are intellectually honest enough to admit it.
I wonder if we really need a key. What if everything is already unlocked?
What does any of this actually mean, or how is it useful? What does it mean for the parts or the whole to be primary? What would the differences imply?
By saying one is primary, you seem to be projecting some sort of preference, or value of parts over wholes or vice versa, but preferences and values only exist in your mind and are not qualities of parts, nor wholes. Primary and secondary are ideas in the mind based on relevance, not properties of wholes or parts.
Parts or the whole is relevent to whatever goal is in the mind at some moment. So the answer is, parts or wholes are primary or not depending on what your goal is at any moment. Is your goal to tell time or to fix the watch? The whole is primary for the former, while the parts are primary for the latter.
Of course it can. You do the experiment yourself.
Quoting Janus
Exactly. It's supposition. If you do the experiment, you'll find out for yourself. You're just rejecting it out of hand, based on ad hoc assertions and supposition.
Quoting Janus
I haven't said I'm enlightened. And you can do the experiment yourself.
Quoting Janus
You need to be intellectually honest to realize that an experiment that anyone can perform is as objective as you can get, and is the total opposite of blind faith. It's more objective than many sciences, which cannot be done by anyone.
Right, so I have been saying that a Guru's "expertise" or lack of cannot be demonstrated in a way that a musician's, artist's, engineer's, doctor's, etc can; such that an unbiased observer would have to acknowledge the expertise or lack of. You haven't said anything that demonstrates this is wrong, you have just argued against a claim that you wouldn't be able to test it yourself over a period of many years or a lifetime, which is a claim I haven't made.
So, if the only way to test a guru's expertise would be to do the experiment yourself, then you stand to waste a lot of time, perhaps your whole life, which no doubt many many acolytes have.
And even then, if you have only your own experience to measure against, you might be deceiving yourself. It's always going to be matter of faith, that is inescapable. Ultimately everything, even trust in science and inter-subjectively testable knowledge is a matter of faith to some degree.
Quoting Dharmi
No, I think you need to be intellectually honest and admit that as fallible humans we are all capable of deceiving ourselves about almost anything. The only thing which "keeps us honest" is inter-subjective feedback and agreement, which is impossible in the context we are discussing. The "expertise" or lack of it of so-called gurus simply cannot be inter-subjectively corroborated as it can with other professions.
Yes, by comparing different "expert's" opinions on a topic. Ancient Greeks, Hebrews, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists addressed similar philosophical topics, and arrived at different conclusions. Yet, thousands of years later, modern philosophers continue to debate the same old "truths". So, I carefully select from among those truth-theories the ones that best fit my personal understanding of how & why the world works as it does. That's why my worldview is pretty eclectic, but not beholden to any particular school of thought. I seem to get along fine without any spirit guide or guru. Of course, I may be missing something important. So that's why I keep my antennae tuned to search for truths wherever they may originate. For me, the final arbiter of Truth is my own feeble reasoning ability. :cool:
Quoting Dharmi
Ditto, for much of ancient philosophy, sophistry, and religion. That's why Sophisticated Skepticism is a good tool for digging-out nuggets of truth. :smile:
Sigh. That's literally the opposite of what I've been saying. And you're unable, or unwilling to understand or listen. Hence, this conversation is over.
Quoting Gnomon
You are a sophist.
Quoting Gnomon
No, actually they didn't. Because various religions and philosophies deviated significantly from the organic root, it appears that way to someone unlearned. In reality, all civilizations had the exact same understanding and the exact same truth. They all had means, bonified and true means, to experience mystical union with the Divine. Then, various factions, such as Zoroastrianism, Abrahamism and Buddhism, broke away and ever since that point more and more fools and rascals have deviated from that path. Modernists and Postmodernists are just the latest iteration of the bunch.
Your opinion is as irrelevant to me as anyone else's, there's no meaning and purpose in life by your worldview, so there's meaning or purpose to anything you say. So quit wasting my time, quit wasting your time.
Nobody said you should shut your reasoning off. And you're not getting along fine at all, your whole worldview is a massive self-contradiction. If you were truly interested in the truth, you'd actually be listening to what I've been saying. But you're not. You're already convinced in what you already want to believe.
Having said that, it's clear from this dialogue you've already shut your reasoning off without my external intervention or the intervention of any guru.
Right, so this is just skepticism. Which I reject. If it's all subjectivity, then my subjectivity rejects yours. This is just foolishness. You're correct, everything requires some degree of faith. This is the basic problem that Agrippa's Trilemma points out. You either have to accept an infinite series, or you need to accept arbitrariness or circularity. There is no escape from the contingency of our beliefs. That doesn't mean we just go into pure skepticism because the question is difficult for you. That's laziness.
Quoting Janus
Already answered. If you're playing the skeptic game, then there's no debate or dialogue. It's just a waste of time.
I'm not "playing the skeptic game"; I allow that we have knowledge. For me knowledge is defined as what we are reasonably entitled to claim based on inter-subjective corroboration. Direct knowing, intellectual intuition, what gurus claim to know, etc., aint it simply because of the lack of the possibility of inter-subjective corroboration.
If you experience what is generally called within the gnostic spiritual traditions direct knowing (and I know because I have) it consists in a feeling of absolute certainty. There is literally nothing to measure that feeling against, which doesn't mean it is not a good reason for you to believe whatever it is you are certain of based on that ineffable feeling of certainty, but it cannot constitute a reason for others to believe anything. Your believing, though, still remains a matter of faith; you could still be wrong about whatever it is you are certain of. That's all I'm saying. Nothing to do with skepticism.