the tree and the ladder

the tree is religion...any religion...the bark is faith..it covers the whole tree...the ladder is reason...it is organized and purposeful but it has a limit in that it does not reach to all of the tree...one must leave the ladder and get into the tree to explore the whole tree...the use of reason to explore religion will always fall short...reason cannot disprove the upper part of the tree as it cannot get you into the higher and or wider portions...this you must do yourself...so let those who criticize religion from a point of reason do so but it has it's limits ( and the best part of the tree is always in the leafy areas up above and around the main limb anyway...i believe it was st. augustine who made this almost two centuries ago...nothing has changed since...

The bits of the tree that the ladder can reach are the only bits that ever seem to give fruit, and if you drift off into the upper levels, your risk of falling down and killing yourself and others increases 😉

the tree is a metaphor...you cannot apply materialty to everything...

I was carrying on the metaphor to build up the image

well..then i missed it...( just average intelligence here and declining with age )..carry on, sir..

Originally posted by reinfeld
the tree is religion...any religion...the bark is faith..it covers the whole tree...the ladder is reason...it is organized and purposeful but it has a limit in that it does not reach to all of the tree...one must leave the ladder and get into the tree to explore the whole tree...the use of reason to explore religion will always fall short...reason cannot di ...[text shortened]... ieve it was st. augustine who made this almost two centuries ago...nothing has changed since...

That's a rubbish metaphor, all I have to do is buy an extendible ladder to reach the higher branches, which actually improves the metaphor no end. The tree is the spirit, the bark is but a covering by institutionalised religion, under which the true essence of the spirit may be found. The ladder is still reason and by extending my reason I can conquer even the highest branches of the tree, all it takes is to use a ladder and one's own desires to strip bare the bark and reveal the spirit.

...well, st. augustine said that faith and reason were not incompatible but that reason could only take you so far and faith would have to take you the rest of the way...so that is the point...i think st. augustine is correct.

Originally posted by reinfeld
...well, st. augustine said that faith and reason were not incompatible but that reason could only take you so far and faith would have to take you the rest of the way...so that is the point...i think st. augustine is correct.

I think St. Augustine made the error of presuming that reason was incapable in some way. Faith is a mug's game and in my view those that use it do so only because they have inadequacies of reason.

Originally posted by Starrman
I think St. Augustine made the error of presuming that reason was incapable in some way. Faith is a mug's game and in my view those that use it do so only because they have inadequacies of reason.

Well, here we are with that “faith” word again.

Here is my analogy. Suppose someone wants to learn how to hit a golf ball well. That would seem to require three things:

(1) Commitment to the possibility that one is capable of so doing;

(2) A bit of learned technique; and

(3) Practice.

Without (1), a person is apt to simply assume that they can’t learn to hit the ball well, or simply waste their time whacking at it desultorily. Without (2), one is apt to continually duff. Without (3), one has no chance to “groove” the swing, so to speak.

But (1) cannot pick up where (2) and (3) leave off; it cannot take you the rest of the way. It is (1) that becomes, as it were, the testable hypothesis.

How long must one practice, perhaps adjusting technique as necessary, before coming to a fair conclusion that one simply has no talent for this thing? I don’t know. Perhaps a person can only judge that—with ruthless honesty—for themselves.

(1) is “faith” [?]; (2) is observation and reason; (3) is (3).

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, here we are with that “faith” word again.

Here is my analogy. Suppose someone wants to learn how to hit a golf ball well. That would seem to require three things:

(1) Commitment to the possibility that one is capable of so doing;

(2) A bit of learned technique; and

(3) Practice.

Without (1), a person is apt to simply assume that th ...[text shortened]... less honesty—for themselves.

(1) is “faith” [?]; (2) is observation and reason; (3) is (3).

But learning to hit a golf ball well and hitting a golf ball are not the same thing. Learning to hit a golf ball well requires only (2).* Also, hitting a golf ball well requires none of the above, it remains possible to hit a golf ball well through natural talent or fluke, so we're into the necessary and sufficient distinctions of golf ball hitting. To take up your point concerning (3), perhaps all that stands between any of us and golfing nirvana is enough practice, how would we know if we give up, maybe the next day would have been the breakthrough?

In light of my * I'd like to add a (4), that of reasoning about (1), (2) and (3) as a separate category. In pursuit of golfing nirvana the use of reason can elaborate that which we believe (assuming we ignore the notion of unjustified belief for the moment), that which we are taught and that which we experience. For me reason is the glue that binds the pursuit of whatever it is together: nirvana: peace: satisfaction: (1), (2) and (3) are the pieces.
____________________________________

*Can we reword (2) to be 'memorising technique'?

Originally posted by Starrman
But learning to hit a golf ball well and hitting a golf ball are not the same thing. Learning to hit a golf ball well requires only (2).* Also, hitting a golf ball well requires none of the above, it remains possible to hit a golf ball well through natural talent or fluke, so we're into the necessary and sufficient distinctions of golf ball hitting. To t ...[text shortened]... s.
____________________________________

*Can we reword (2) to be 'memorising technique'?

I see what your saying with (4). I would say, however, that lived experience is the glue that binds it all together, else we have nothing to reason about. I can, offhand, think of no reason to believe something that is unreasonable; but not every aspect of my life is subject either belief or reason: there is what I call the aesthetic element, which is a term, as you know, that I use very broadly.

I should perhaps have said “consistently well.” Absent (1), at least provisionally, a person is unlikely to undertake the endeavor. I am thinking in terms of my own Zen path. But I stress that (1) is subject to testing.

Even if I accept “memorizing technique” (I’m, not sure what your problem with “learned” is) unless it is simply a head-game (unlike golf or Zen), then (3) is implied.

Originally posted by vistesd
I see what your saying with (4). I would say, however, that lived experience is the glue that binds it all together, else we have nothing to reason about. I can, offhand, think of no reason to believe something that is unreasonable; but not every aspect of my life is subject either belief or reason: there is what I call the aesthetic element, whic ...[text shortened]... m with “learned” is) unless it is simply a head-game (unlike golf or Zen), then (3) is implied.

Are you sure that not every aspect of your life is subject to either belief or reason? I agree there is always the aesthetic aspect, but are not one's aesthetic judgements built in some way on either belief or reason?

Learned technique suggests reasoning is involved, memorised technique lacks a cognitive aspect, I think the distinction is important and allows my (4). I'm not sure I see how (2) necessarily implies (3) (possibly the problem with metaphors and indeterminacy 🙂).

Originally posted by Starrman
Are you sure that not every aspect of your life is subject to either belief or reason? I agree there is always the aesthetic aspect, but are not one's aesthetic judgements built in some way on either belief or reason?

Learned technique suggests reasoning is involved, memorised technique lacks a cognitive aspect, I think the distinction is important and ...[text shortened]... ee how (2) necessarily implies (3) (possibly the problem with metaphors and indeterminacy 🙂).

Well, I intended (2) to include reason; but it could be simply by rote. It could be by a little of both.

No, I think there are experiences that precede reason, and to which it is not necessary to apply reason or come to some belief. I use the word “aesthetic” to broadly capture those, though I’m not sure that it is the best word. Just-listening to Beethoven; being lost in an orgasm. Why would they require belief and reason?

I'm not sure what you mean by an "aesthetic judgment." Do you mean a judgment as to why I enjoy Beethoven (I need none), or why everyone ought to (I make no such claim). Or do you mean some general exploration of why so many people do seem to enjoy Beethoven? That is at another level from the experience itself, and in order to explore possible answers to that question, you do need to apply thinking-mind.

Belief and reason are in the domain of thinking-mind. One does not simply reason will-nilly: one reasons about something. [i]Tathata[i]—the just-so suchness of this moment now, of which you also are—experienced in clear-mind is prior to reason and belief. Whatever interpretations/beliefs one wants to lay on that experience are (or ought to be) subject to reason.

Originally posted by vistesd
No, I think there are experiences that precede reason,

agreed, but

and to which it is not necessary to apply reason or come to some belief.

Disagreed, I think all beliefs are raised upon a pre-existing conceptual framework, either directly or by stages of reason and belief.

I use the word “aesthetic” to broadly capture those, though I’m not sure that it is the best word. Just-listening to Beethoven; being lost in an orgasm. Why would they require belief and reason?

Just listening doesn't, but having any thoughts upon their nature does. Finding pleasure in them requires some pre-existing concepts, experiences, beliefs; what is pleasure, what Beethoven's music sounds like etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by an "aesthetic judgment." Do you mean a judgment as to why I enjoy Beethoven (I need none), or why everyone ought to (I make no such claim). Or do you mean some general exploration of why so many people do seem to enjoy Beethoven? That is at another level from the experience itself, and in order to explore possible answers to that question, you do need to apply thinking-mind.

Does it make more sense as regards my post above?

Belief and reason are in the domain of thinking-mind. One does not simply reason will-nilly: one reasons about something. [i]Tathata[i]—the just-so suchness of this moment now, of which you also are—experienced in clear-mind is prior to reason and belief. Whatever interpretations/beliefs one wants to lay on that experience are (or ought to be) subject to reason.

Originally posted by reinfeld
...the ladder is reason...

...one must leave the ladder ...

So can we say that you and reason have parted ways?
Or that your religion is unreasonable?

And why 'must' you climb the tree in the first place? Because others are up the tree?