Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"Similar to using words to describe words, we use concepts to define concepts. Where does it end? Or begin?"


Scale of ten, thread making any progress in refining its opening question or distilling any satisfying answers?[/b]

Far afield, unfortunately. Quite a few good points made, no doubt, but we're not addressing the main one, namely: what is the reality upon which all the shadows are based?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Far afield, unfortunately. Quite a few good points made, no doubt, but we're not addressing the main one, namely: what is the reality upon which all the shadows are based?

Light.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Far afield, unfortunately. Quite a few good points made, no doubt, but we're not addressing the main one, namely: what is the reality upon which all the shadows are based?

But, my friend—I already gave the answer! 😉

It seems there are five possibilities here:

(1) The fundamental substratum of consciousness behind/between our conceptual mind-activity.
(2) The presented reality of the cosmos, or some aspect of the cosmos (which may remain mysterious to us).
(3) The encounter of (1) and (2).
(4) A source external to the cosmos (e.g., via, as you say, revelation).
(5) The encounter of (1) and (4); which might seem redundant, but can be quite complex (e.g., the question of a “universal” interpretation of the revelation).

Now, my response basically focused on (1), as the ground from which all concept-thoughts arise. But, since such concept-thoughts are generally in response to (2), I’d certainly go with (3).

And that is where you and I are (always) at impasse. I certainly grant that (4) could do the job. But it entails the assumption of metaphysical dualism—and that is, as I say, the great metaphysical/spiritual/religious divide.

Some non-dualist attempt to resolve that by simply subsuming dualism under non-dualism: that is, dualism is the product of our naturally limited perspective (none of us having a “view from nowhere” ), and non-dualism represents the recognition of that—thereby being able to affirm various dualistic views as “partial truths”. Thus non-dualism tends to be non-exclusivist with regard to various spiritual expressions.* The Sufi Fritjof Schuon, in his book The Transcendental Unity of Religions, gives a very eloquent account of this view.

But I always feel a bit uneasy with it. It seems to smack of a certain condescension—such as when a Hindu or a Buddhist deigns to tell a Christian what Jesus “really meant”. I have fallen into that trap myself (and knightmeister, for one, called me on it; good for him!). A Meister Eckhart might be able to offer a basically non-dualist Christian theology—from within the fold, so to speak—but the most a Buddhist can do, properly, is to say something like: “Well, I might understand Jesus this way, in which case I agree; otherwise, I think he was wrong.” I might tell you that I think dualism is just wrong (and I do)—but I really can’t tell you that your understanding of Christianity itself is wrong (or anyone else’s, for that matter).

In truth, I am partial to Schuon’s view—though I have some disagreements with him. I certainly think that non-dualism is the broader view (as well as being the correct one). But if I want to be respectful—well, I might argue with you from a non-dualist point of view, of course; but I can’t propose that you are confused about your own religion! Or don’t express it correctly (read: as a Christian expression of non-dualism—a “Christian Zen”, so to speak; though those folks are out there too)! I can embrace a Meister Eckhart; but I can’t say that his theology is the “right” Christian theology.

And so, I treat the divide as—impassable. And accept the impasse.

__________________________________________________________

* I use “non-exclusivist”, rather than “inclusivist” because I don’t want to imply that the non-dualist accepts the whole of any given expression (e.g., Christianity or Islam, etc.) as being true. I am not too fond of the "All paths lead to..." type of approach; although many paths may.

Originally posted by vistesd
LOL!! Good, good! Thanks for that.

🙂

I should lighten up. Sometimes I take myself too seriously.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Far afield, unfortunately. Quite a few good points made, no doubt, but we're not addressing the main one, namely: what is the reality upon which all the shadows are based?

Perhaps it is something like Kant's noumena.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Perhaps it is something like Kant's noumena.

Yes, I think a lot like that. I wonder how that stage of knowledge (that we know there is a something that we don't know, cannot hope to put our hands on under our own power) might be described?

Pregnant? Hopeful? Ready? Stymied?

Originally posted by vistesd
But, my friend—I already gave the answer! 😉

It seems there are five possibilities here:

(1) The fundamental substratum of consciousness behind/between our conceptual mind-activity.
(2) The presented reality of the cosmos, or some aspect of the cosmos (which may remain mysterious to us).
(3) The encounter of (1) and (2).
(4) A source external to t ...[text shortened]... not too fond of the "All paths lead to..." type of approach; although many paths may.[/b]

I don't know that we cannot see from nowhere. The existence into which my great, great, great grandson is born is readily envisioned by me, yet he does not exist. Too, we can easily imagine the world prior to our entrance onto the stage.

As for all of the problems associated with dual and non-dualism, I fail to see the issues, really. I can make something which arises from my intellect and creative abilities that could not exist otherwise, but I exist regardless of my creation. I do not need them to exist; their existence is dependent upon me.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm going with (4) or (5) either way!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't know that we cannot see from nowhere. The existence into which my great, great, great grandson is born is readily envisioned by me, yet he does not exist. Too, we can easily imagine the world prior to our entrance onto the stage.

As for all of the problems associated with dual and non-dualism, I fail to see the issues, really. I can make some ...[text shortened]... ndent upon me.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm going with (4) or (5) either way!

Yes, but you don’t have a vision of my great, great, great…etc.

By non-dualism here, I mean specifically that all there is, is inseparably entwined, as it were, in a single Whole. The religious dualist posits an agency or being exogenous to that (otherwise) Whole; the two do not form a larger Whole because of God’s “wholly otherness”. In Christianity (generally speaking), there is a single miraculous exception: the incarnation of Jesus as Christ. [I know I’m cutting a lot of corners here, for brevity.]

With regard to the Whole, having a “view from nowhere” would mean being “outside the Whole”—which is impossible (as long as it is the Whole: we are part of that Whole).

A non-dualistic theism posits God as wholly (pantheism) or partially (panentheism: a partial, not complete non-dualism) immanent with/as the cosmos. A dualist God creates the cosmos; for a non-dualistic God, the cosmos emanates, or is generated from, in and (in some way) as the divine ground. (A non-theistic non-dualism doesn’t assign any “personal” characteristics to the ground and source of existents—e.g., Taoism—or, at most, use theistic terms metaphorically or symbolically (as in non-dualist Kashmiri Shavism).

As long as (4) is an agency/being separate from the rest (“creation” ), the non-dualist cannot go there. Hence the divide. I doubt that you would embrace a completely non-dualist theism; you might push it to panentheism.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Yes, I think a lot like that. I wonder how that stage of knowledge (that we know there is a something that we don't know, cannot hope to put our hands on under our own power) might be described?

Pregnant? Hopeful? Ready? Stymied?

Hopelessly cornered. Belly up and dead in the water. Glimpse of utter human failure

(or even an old tattered, worthless snapshot of Fort Worth) ever cross your mind?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Similar to using words to describe words, we use concepts to define concepts. Where does it end? Or begin?

there might be concepts that are primitive, in the sense that they are incapable of being analysed further. 'ought' might be such a concept, and perhaps the basic logical connectors such as 'and', 'or' and so on.

also, some concepts might be innate - i.e. our minds are not 'blank slates' at birth - i seem to remember that the philosopher Jerry Fodor has a view like this and, in fact, thinks that we have a very large number of innate concepts.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Hopelessly cornered. Belly up and dead in the water. Glimpse of utter human failure

(or even an old tattered, worthless snapshot of Fort Worth) ever cross your mind?

Used to!

Originally posted by Blackamp
there might be concepts that are primitive, in the sense that they are incapable of being analysed further. 'ought' might be such a concept, and perhaps the basic logical connectors such as 'and', 'or' and so on.

also, some concepts might be innate - i.e. our minds are not 'blank slates' at birth - i seem to remember that the philosopher Jerry Fodor has ...[text shortened]... view like this and, in fact, thinks that we have a very large number of innate concepts.

I agree that man has indelible innate knowledge, somewhat akin to how animals possess instincts. What makes ours so compelling is the nature of their properties. Whereas instincts (ours included) are linked to self-preservation, that we know such concepts as truth, justice, fairness and love--- without anything concrete to attach them to is (in my opinion) mysterious.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I agree that man has indelible innate knowledge, somewhat akin to how animals possess instincts. What makes ours so compelling is the nature of their properties. Whereas instincts (ours included) are linked to self-preservation, that we know such concepts as truth, justice, fairness and love--- without anything concrete to attach them to is (in my opinion) mysterious.

Let's take an objective inventory of the somewhat misleading 'tabula rasa' state at the moment of human birth: One womb oven factory issued physical body + One genetic library of both positive and negative pre-dispositions + One immortal soul with self awareness and self determination = One human creature (unreconciled from its maker) with volitional choice and incredible potential for making right/wrong decisions, some of which are irreversible and irrevocable. Do we need a recount?



...............................................

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Let's take an objective inventory of the somewhat misleading 'tabula rasa' state at the moment of human birth: One womb oven factory issued physical body + One genetic library of both positive and negative pre-dispositions + One immortal soul with self awareness and self determination = One human creature (unreconciled from its maker) with volitional ch ...[text shortened]... and irrevocable. Do we need a recount?



...............................................

No, I'd say that inventory is spot on.🙂

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Let's take an objective inventory of the somewhat misleading 'tabula rasa' state at the moment of human birth: One womb oven factory issued physical body + One genetic library of both positive and negative pre-dispositions + One immortal soul with self awareness and self determination = One human creature (unreconciled from its maker) with volitional ch ...[text shortened]... and irrevocable. Do we need a recount?



...............................................

Shame on yours truly. Recount was absolutely necessary after all:

"... + One immortal soul with self awareness and self determination..." ... plus two (2) personalized tickets per individual. One pre-punched finite timeout/timebank planet earth sojurn ticket which reads, '1 day at a time/fleeting vapor trail timebank'. And a simple fill in the blank address ticket we each punch to determine the residence of our immortal souls for eternity.




................................................