The Supernatural Category

From another thread, about the same time, as a supplement to my “blind spot” post above.

_______________________________________

You think: “I.”

You have a thought: “I.”

And in that thought are likely enfolded a whole complex of thoughts about that “I”: memories, who you have decided you are, who other people have decided you are, names, beliefs...

You might call that “I” “me”, or “myself”—or simply “I”. You might think all kinds of theories about that “I”.

But—

What is thinking that “I-complex”? Who is making that whole somebody-self?

Who is the I thinking that “I”? Is that I another thought? A thought thinking a thought? If you think so, then who is thinking that I?

Don’t think! Don’t start to make more thoughts about it: “I think it’s X” or “It must be Y” or “Buddhism says it’s Z”. Don’t theorize about it—

—find it... if you can.

A metaphorical hint: Looking for it is like using a flashlight to look for the flashlight.

Of course, “it” isn’t really an it. That’s just a way of talking. It is the being-of-you that is itself no content at all. Not thing, nor concept, but process.

I could give it a name—but any name I give it, any of this talk talking about it, is just hints and allusions, no more. If I call it being-self-aware, that is likely to raise all sorts of talks about what is “self” (and “soul”, and the like): and the mind runs off chasing itself. That can all be great fun, of course—as long as you don’t get caught... 😉 It’s so habitual and seductive, even the “masters” catch themselves getting caught, time and again.

____________________________________

Another hint and allusion (no more): Being-aware of being-aware—and being-aware that that is your original “self” from the beginning, which reflects on all content (including content of its own making), all thought and experience and mental representations—but is itself no content at all.

I see the cat dozing in the sun. My brain makes a mental representation in the visual cortex from the sensory stimuli. I smell the fragrance of the ginger-lilies; the same. I have a feeling of contentment; the same. I think a thought: “How wonderful!”; the same. I stub my toe: “Ouch!”; the same. I feel hunger; the same. I think another thought: “I”; the same. All natural content-making. No problem.

Underneath all that content, you are no content at all—not even the content you call “I”.

_______________________________________

What you’re searching for
is what you’re searching with,
looking both ways through
the needle’s eye of your own mind,
and that’s why you’ll never “find” it anywhere—

Originally posted by vistesd
I would argue that it is less difficult (perhaps more desirable) to create one's own meaning than it is to discover and appropriate the proper place of everything relative to God.

My experience is precisely the opposite: it was much easier to accept that meaning was simply given by God.

Yes, but "unique" and "precious" are values which you a and that last post, “the bottom fell out of the bucket.”

Be well. Rest that good brain.

My experience is precisely the opposite: it was much easier to accept that meaning was simply given by God.

Perhaps. However, I'm speaking more particularly about the difficulty actually appropriating the proper place everything has relative to God. For instance, God gives chastity and fidelity high value, relative to promiscuity and adultery. The standard which God's character demands from those made in His likeness extends even to the thought-life of His creatures. But purity of heart is impossible to acquire in one's own power. (Try it. It's fruitless.) In this case it would certainly not be easier to accept the proper place of everything relative to God. It would be far more desirable to say that God does not have such demands and to simply live according to one's own standard.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]My experience is precisely the opposite: it was much easier to accept that meaning was simply given by God.

Perhaps. However, I'm speaking more particularly about the difficulty actually appropriating the proper place everything has relative to God. For instance, God gives chastity and fidelity high value, relative to promiscuity and adultery ...[text shortened]... say that God does not have such demands and to simply live according to one's own standard.[/b]

First of all, everything that you say here presumes belief in a God—or perhaps that the only reason one might not believe in a (particular) God is so one can get away with stuff.

For instance, God gives chastity and fidelity high value, relative to promiscuity and adultery.

So do I, assuming that you’re referring here to the joys of living in a loving, monogamous relationship.

The standard which God's character demands from those made in His likeness extends even to the thought-life of His creatures.

So do my own standards, having to do with self-integrity, and the vigilance and self-questioning that go with that.

But purity of heart is impossible to acquire in one's own power.

I don’t know what you mean by purity of heart. Whether or not such a thing is possible to attain by one’s own power does not mean that there is, in fact, another power by which it might be attained.

It would be far more desirable to say that God does not have such demands and to simply live according to one's own standard.

Nature has “demands,” such as mortality, in the face of which it may be far more desirable to simply deny such demands, and fabricate a worldview in which such demands are overcome.

Some people look for the easy path; some people are not content unless they’re struggling. Some people can’t stand to not know all the answers; some people shrug it off easily. I’m not convinced that there is any basis for saying that either theists or non-theists choose the easier or more desirable path (unless, perhaps, that we all choose the more desirable path, whether we’re willing to acknowledge it or not).

You might say that I’m afraid to look into the face of God; I might say that you’re afraid to die. Both of those might be completely inaccurate statements.

Originally posted by darthmix
I guess my general feeling is that the term "supernatural" is an oxymoron. If something exists, it does so within the framework of the natural universe, even if we don't currently understand what that is. There is no "super" natural. God, even if he exists and has limitless power, is as such a central component of the natural universe, and not a supernatural being at all.

A preacher friend of mine would agree with you completely. He believe very much in natural law, and seems to think that God would never violate these laws (which he made anyway). Now this knocks out most, if not all, of the miracles recorded in the Bible. Elijah calling down fire from heaven? "A magic trick," he says. Walking on water? "Also an illusion." Feeding 100s with a few pieces of bread? Allegory. Many rising from their graves on the first Easter? Nope, "people do not get up and rise from the dead; this would have been reported in every media outlet available at the time."
I prefer my pastor's take: God is indeed supernatural, as is His Son. The greatest miracle of all is the death and resurrection of Christ, and thus the salvation of mankind. It's not a case of something we don't understand "yet"; we will never understand that. It was and ever shall be, a supernatural act.

Originally posted by vistesd
From another thread, about the same time, as a supplement to my “blind spot” post above.

_______________________________________

You think: “I.”

You have a thought: “I.”

And in that thought are likely enfolded a whole complex of thoughts about that “I”: memories, who you have decided you are, who other people have decided you are, names, belie ...[text shortened]... ays through
the needle’s eye of your own mind,
and that’s why you’ll never “find” it anywhere—

"I" is a living human brain or equivalent.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
A preacher friend of mine would agree with you completely. He believe very much in natural law, and seems to think that God would never violate these laws (which he made anyway). Now this knocks out most, if not all, of the miracles recorded in the Bible. Elijah calling down fire from heaven? "A magic trick," he says. Walking on water? "Also an illusi "yet"; we will never understand that. It was and ever shall be, a supernatural act.

I'm confused. You seem to be saying miracles are impossible, yet Jesus Christ rose from the dead. That's quite inconsistent, to say the least.

EDIT: Never mind; I see. I was confusing your "preacher friend" with your pastor. 🙄