1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI probably was very confusing. Some questions:
I'm confused about what you meant in the first part of your post. The synthetic a priori is constituted by a set of propositions (perhaps empty) that are 1) knowable independently of sensory experience, and 2) not analytic (that is, not true just by virtue of their syntax or by the meanings of their constituent terms). Kant takes geometric knowledge to be paradigmatic here.
(1) If the set is empty, then is there really anything to talk about?
(2) Can we know whether the set is empty?
(3) Can you flesh out simply the way of nonsensory knowing? (I’m assuming you don’t mean simply reasoning. Are you speaking of something akin to Schopenhauer’s “subjective knowing?&rdquo😉
If you can use simple geometry as an example for this, that’d be okay. My understanding was that geometry is either (a) a dimensional reality whose rules are derived empirically (e.g., the circumference of a circle), or (b) imposed by the “architecture of our consciousness” on our sensory experience of the world. In the latter case, I’m back to the question of non-sensory knowing.
Thanks Bennett.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJello[/b]Is it because I am compelled by the recognition of wholeness, or is it because I am seeking a wholeness that I can call my own, or is it just because, as Schopenhauer argues, my main daily task is fending off boredom?
Another good post. You're helping me get my mind back on track.
[b]Yet, there does seem to be a grand wholeness to it all—it is cosmos rather than chaos; and, of course, one might quite rationally say, “So what? If it were otherwise, we wouldn’t be here to think about it.” But recognition of the wholeness is what impels us to art: no awe, no Darn, I need to run to class. I'll try to return later to write some more thoughts.
My best guess: yes. 🙂 Or, and I think I was a bit careless here, the passionate mind seeking to impose a wholeness where it sees none (your second option?).
Schopenhauer is looking for entertainment solutions, whereas, I would like to say that my working so hard on the classical guitar is a search for something deeper -- aesthetics, maybe.
I agree. And if is an illusion, so be it. (I wonder if there ought to be mention of the Nietzschean distinction between Apollonian and Dionysian art here?
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, 'Noumenon' is roughly translated as "thing-in-itself", but in (1) you seemed to be claiming that the noumenon was something like a property of objects (you said "the noumenon of any entity"😉, which is incorrect. (1) should read "If there is a noumenal world, we can't know anything substantial of it".
1. Doesn't 'noumenon' simply mean "thing-in-itself" (as distinguished from 'phenomenon', "thing as it appears to us"😉?
2. Why is (1) nonsensical?
3. Does the process of thinking belong to the noumenal world or the phenomenal world?
4. If the noumenal world is the world as it is 'independent of the mind', how is Kant able to posit its existenc ...[text shortened]... his discussion, where does the GTBGW (God/Tao/Brahman/Ground of Being/whatever) lie?
The process of thinking is at least partially constituted by the deployment of concepts. Concepts derive their content from experience, and their extension (that to which they refer) are elements of the phenomenal world only. The reason we can't know anything substantial about the noumenal world is that none of our concepts refer to the noumenal world, but to the phenomenal world only. Hence, your premise (2) is question-begging, because according to Kant you can't attribute to the noumenal world the property of being partly constituted by the process of thinking.
For Kant, the concept 'noumenal world' stands as something like a placeholder. It stands for whatever there is beyond the limits of experience.
The point of positing the noumenal world is to show that if there is such a thing, then we can't know anything about it. The project is to show the limits of thought, starting from claims about the content of our concepts.
I have no idea about the relationship of Kant's view to GTBGW. In fact, I don't think we can talk meaningfully about the divine, though we can talk meaningfully about certain conceptualizations of the divine.
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesd1. Calling it 'boom' doesn't solve your problem - it only raises new ones. What is 'boom'? Why do you seek to experience it?
A couple things:
(1) Yes, a phrase such as “ground of being” is problematic. From now on I will call it Boom!, period.
(2) Part of the effability problem that I mentioned earlier, and I’ll try to make clearer here,* was that no experience of boom is (a) free of “adulteration” by our own consciousness, and (b) that there is no way to un ...[text shortened]... rticulation.
EDIT: Do you think tathata will get me in more trouble than boom?
2a. Why must every experience of 'boom' be adulterated by our consciousness? Is every perception of a red car the wrong colour?
2b. If the 'adulteration'/'translation' is an individual process, then you should be able to separate out the 'adulterated' bits from the 'unadulterated' bits by comparing various accounts of encounter with 'boom' with each other. (This is similar to the case where I might take measurements on different instruments to avoid systematic error in any one instrument).
On the other hand, if the adulteration is a consistent feature of human perception (and it does not have other real effects), then it makes no difference whether your account is adulterated or not - every other human observer will perceive 'boom' in the same way. As far as human beings are concerned, the human-adulterated perception is indistinguishable from the "real" thing.
Either way, the adulteration/translation issue is not the insurmountable barrier you're making it out to be.
3. I don't know whether 'tathata' will get you into more trouble than 'boom' - see (1) above.
Originally posted by bbarrSo Kant is essentially dividing all of reality into two distinct parts - the knowable (phenomenal) and the unknowable (noumenal)?
Yes, 'Noumenon' is roughly translated as "thing-in-itself", but in (1) you seemed to be claiming that the noumenon was something like a property of objects (you said "the noumenon of any entity"😉, which is incorrect. (1) should read "If there is a noumenal world, we can't know anything substantial of it".
The process of thinking is at least partially con ...[text shortened]... though we can talk meaningfully about certain conceptualizations of the divine.
Is his approach to the phenomenal world any different from, say, Aristotle's?
I was using the term 'noumenon' as a synonym for 'essence' and 'phenomenon' for something akin to Locke's 'qualities'.
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, every perception of a certain wavelength of light as “red,” is a function of how a human being perceives that wavelength.
1. Calling it 'boom' doesn't solve your problem - it only raises new ones. What is 'boom'? Why do you seek to experience it?
2a. Why must every experience of 'boom' be adulterated by our consciousness? Is every perception of a red car the wrong colour?
2b. If the 'adulteration'/'translation' is an individual process, then you shoul ...[text shortened]... 'tathata' will get you into more trouble than 'boom' - see (1) above.
I don’t think that all individual human beings experience the world identically (with regard to color or other sensory experiences), but they do have generally similar perceptions (again, a frequency distribution—which may be reflected by a bell-curve, may be a bi-modal distribution, etc.; that is an empirical matter. People with something called synesthesia experience the world differently, for example, experiencing sounds as colors; one assumes they are near the tail of any distribution).
People also respond according to their conditioning, their knowledge base, etc. It is also possible that any spiritual/mystical experience is simply illusion. I prefer not to think so, but I always keep that in the back of my mind too.
If you read the literature of the mystics across religions, there are similarities in their descriptions; there are also differences in the details and the understanding of the nature of those experiences.
Calling it 'boom' doesn't solve your problem - it only raises new ones. What is 'boom'? Why do you seek to experience it?
Good question. In light of it, I want to add something to our “map & territory” analogy: I can give you a map to the territory; I cannot give you a map of the territory. I can only relate my experience of it, and say “Try going this direction.”
Now tathata is the suchness or thus-ness of the reality in which we live, and of which we are. Boom is a joyful, powerful and harmonious experience of tathata—or, it is simply a joyful, powerful and harmonious experience of being in direct, aware contact with our existence. As metamorphosis once put it, you either want to go look at the temple, or not; descriptions are not a substitute.
I’ve been throwing every word and metaphor at this that I can.
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI can give you a map to the territory; I cannot give you a map of the territory. I can only relate my experience of it, and say “Try going this direction.”
No, every perception of a certain wavelength of light as “red,” is a function of how a human being perceives that wavelength.
I don’t think that all individual human beings experience the world identically (with regard to color or other sensory experiences), but they do have generally similar perceptions (again, a frequency distribution—which may b ns are not a substitute.
I’ve been throwing every word and metaphor at this that I can.
To which the simple response would be - why? What's to be gained by going in that direction? What's there to be found?
To answer these questions you will have to provide a map (of some sort) of the territory. And no rational person would embark on the journey you ask him to unless you provide some sort of answer. Indeed, I would posit that every spiritual "guide" who has ever influenced you to follow the path you have would provide some form of answer.
Something you said about Zen koans in a previous post reminded me of this story (when I first heard it, it was in the context of a Hindu theological debate):
_________________________
About a century or two ago, the Pope decided that all the Jews had to leave the Vatican. Naturally there was a big uproar from the Jewish community. So the Pope made a deal. He would have a religious debate with a member of the Jewish community. If the Jew won, the Jews could stay. If the Pope won, the Jews would leave. The Jews realized that they had no choice. So they picked a middle aged man named Moishe to represent them. Moishe asked for one addition to the debate. To make it more interesting, neither side would be allowed to talk. The pope agreed.
The day of the great debate came. Moishe and the Pope sat opposite each other for a full minute before the Pope raised his hand and showed three fingers. Moishe looked back at him and raised one finger.
The Pope waved his fingers in a circle around his head. Moishe pointed to the ground where he sat.
The Pope pulled out a wafer and a glass of wine. Moishe pulled out an apple. The Pope stood up and said, "I give up. This man is too good. The Jews can stay."
An hour later, the cardinals were all around the Pope asking him what happened. The Pope said: "First I held up three fingers to represent the Trinity. He responded by holding up one finger to remind me that there was still one God common to both our religions. Then I waved my finger around me to show him that God was all around us. He responded by pointing to the ground and showing that God was also right here with us. I pulled out the wine and the wafer to show that God absolves us from our sins. He pulled out an apple to remind me of original sin. He had an answer for everything. What could I do?"
Meanwhile, the Jewish community had crowded around Moishe. "What happened?" they asked. "Well," said Moishe, "First he said to me that the Jews had three days to get out of here. I told him that not one of us was leaving. Then he told me that this whole city would be cleared of Jews. I let him know that we were staying right here."
"And then?" asked a woman.
"I don't know," said Moishe. "He took out his lunch and I took out mine."
___________________
Now tathata is the suchness or thus-ness of the reality in which we live, and of which we are. Boom is a joyful, powerful and harmonious experience of tathata—or, it is simply a joyful, powerful and harmonious experience of being in direct, aware contact with our existence. As metamorphosis once put it, you either want to go look at the temple, or not; descriptions are not a substitute.
Ah, but even the word "temple" is a description!
Look at what you've written above - "joyful, powerful and harmonious" - that's a description of the properties of GTBGW in itself.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerLOL! I forgot that story. But, you see, I think it makes my point!
[b]I can give you a map to the territory; I cannot give you a map of the territory. I can only relate my experience of it, and say “Try going this direction.”
To which the simple response would be - why? What's to be gained by going in that direction? What's there to be found?
To answer these questions you will have to provide a map (of som monious" - that's a description of the properties of GTBGW in itself.[/b]
When I used the words "joyful, powerful and harmonious," I was describing as best I can an experience that, for me, is different from everyday experiences. Maybe it is simply a shift in consciousness, purely psychological--you see, I don't have to claim more than that, even if I choose to view it so. What is GTBGW?
EDIT: I got to pack it in for the night. Be well.
Originally posted by reader1107Except at some point in the growth of their respective political and
What do you mean, they have to out-do the opposition? Christianity existed before Islam, and thus did not exist simply to out-do some other religion. The early followers were Jewish men and women who felt that this Way and their religion were not mutually exclusive.
military power, they will come to you and say "ARE YOU ORANGE OR
ARE YOU GREEN?", as it were. That actually happened to a musician
friend of mine visiting DUBLIN of all places, I could see it happening
in Belfast but there he was walking close to Trinity and some thugs
grabbed him and took him downstairs to a meeting going on and thats
the first thing they said to him. He replies at the top of his lungs in
a very dramatic fashion: "I'M AN AMERICAN, BUT I BELIEVE IN YOUR
CAUSE"! Fortunutely they did not go into any detail about just what
their cause was! He left a bit more than shaken, I can assure you!
But you get the drift: Like my daughter was sucked into being
a Bahai, both her and her husband, now not, long story, but in Iran,
Bahai's (a very mild religion, not a hint of proselytising) but its not
Islam so they are forced to become Muslim and if not, exile with just
the clothes on their backs. The ones who stay, if they convert back
to being Bahai, are killed. So thats why at some point you may not
have the choice to leave it alone.
1 edit
Originally posted by reader1107oops, hit the button one two many times!
What do you mean, they have to out-do the opposition? Christianity existed before Islam, and thus did not exist simply to out-do some other religion. The early followers were Jewish men and women who felt that this Way and their religion were not mutually exclusive.
Originally posted by vistesdLOL! I forgot that story. But, you see, I think it makes my point!
LOL! I forgot that story. But, you see, I think it makes my point!
When I used the words "joyful, powerful and harmonious," I was describing as best I can an experience that, for me, is different from everyday experiences. Maybe it is simply a shift in consciousness, purely psychological--you see, I don't have to claim more than that, eve ...[text shortened]... choose to view it so. What is GTBGW?
EDIT: I got to pack it in for the night. Be well.
I was trying to illustrate that not everything that sounds profound is necessarily so. 😉
When I used the words "joyful, powerful and harmonious," I was describing as best I can an experience that, for me, is different from everyday experiences.
Ah, but what you experience also tells us something about the thing itself. For instance, if you tell me that you experience feelings of joy when you see your wife, it tells me something about the manner in which your wife interacts with you; i.e. it tells me something about your wife.
GTBGW - God/Tao/Brahman/Ground-of-being/Whatever 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerit tells me something about your wife.
[b]LOL! I forgot that story. But, you see, I think it makes my point!
I was trying to illustrate that not everything that sounds profound is necessarily so. 😉
When I used the words "joyful, powerful and harmonious," I was describing as best I can an experience that, for me, is different from everyday experiences.
...[text shortened]... it tells me something about your wife.
GTBGW - God/Tao/Brahman/Ground-of-being/Whatever 🙂[/b]
What?
GTBGW - God/Tao/Brahman/Ground-of-being/Whatever
ROFL!! I love it. That’s it! Boom!
😵
LATE EDIT: I think the tale of Moishe and the Pope illustrates the same thing!
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'll buy that--except for the word "chooses"; that's a bit of a leap (not a big one, and in this case not inaccurate). And the only reason I mention it may be the same kind of leap to assume that the GTBGW chooses to interact with me to result in the same kind of experience. And that goes to the whole question of whether GTBGW is "personal" in any way.
That, at the very least, she chooses to interact with you in a manner that gives you joy.
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdActually, this is something Aquinas argues in the Summa (I.4.2). Since God is the efficient cause of all beings, He must have in Himself the perfections of all beings - including intelligence, will etc. And, if He possesses an intellect and a will, then He is a person by definition.
I'll buy that--except for the word "chooses"; that's a bit of a leap (not a big one, and in this case not inaccurate). And the only reason I mention it may be the same kind of leap to assume that the GTBGW chooses to interact with me to result in the same kind of experience. And that goes to the whole question of whether GTBGW is "personal" in any way.
Indeed, I think "ground of being" should lead you to the same conclusion.