my approach

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator:Metacrock

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:
my approach

Post by Metacrock » Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:02 am

I need feed back on my approach. This is not just the being itself idea but the larger frame work of consciousness as the "proof" for God. I am not saying consciousness proves God, it's not a proof, but you know rational warrant.

the context is Buddhists don't do ontological arguments they just mediate and obtain enlightenment and that is convincing enough for them to believe. Christianity used to be the same way with neo platonic and mysticism. Modern cane in the West and forced everyone to think in terms of surface level thing oriented existence rather than the depth of being.

what do you think?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: my approach

Post by fleetmouse » Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:36 am

Reminds me of Aleister Crowley. He said that he wasn't too concerned with the objective truth of supernatural beings and magical powers as long as ritual gave him the results he wanted, and by results I think he meant changes in consciousness.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: my approach

Post by Metacrock » Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:08 am

fleetmouse wrote:Reminds me of Aleister Crowley. He said that he wasn't too concerned with the objective truth of supernatural beings and magical powers as long as ritual gave him the results he wanted, and by results I think he meant changes in consciousness.
great thanks for the comparison. we need talk about the assumptions you make about reality. why would the lie of objectivity be real and subjective is not real?

what the fuck are we experiencing when we experience subjective things? made up reality?

Objectivity is bull shit. no one is objective. you don't perceive one mother fucking thing anytime apart from your perceptions you experiencing our perceptions. thus all you know is your perceptions which are inherently subjective.


what is consciousness? why do you equate it with false hood?


what is truth? what does truth have to do with objectivity?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: my approach

Post by Metacrock » Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:09 am

is wave-particle duality objective? is it true?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: my approach

Post by met » Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:21 pm

I think this direction is really interesting. Meta. In line with some current popular trends - the yoga craze, the neo-monasticism movement in xianity, the popularity of a writer like Ekhart Tolle - recent Western efforts to recover some perception that being has depth.

.. . can't wait for u to put a big long post on this topic up here! :)
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: my approach

Post by fleetmouse » Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:59 pm

Metacrock wrote:
fleetmouse wrote:Reminds me of Aleister Crowley. He said that he wasn't too concerned with the objective truth of supernatural beings and magical powers as long as ritual gave him the results he wanted, and by results I think he meant changes in consciousness.
great thanks for the comparison. we need talk about the assumptions you make about reality. why would the lie of objectivity be real and subjective is not real?

what the fuck are we experiencing when we experience subjective things? made up reality?

Objectivity is bull shit. no one is objective. you don't perceive one mother fucking thing anytime apart from your perceptions you experiencing our perceptions. thus all you know is your perceptions which are inherently subjective.


what is consciousness? why do you equate it with false hood?


what is truth? what does truth have to do with objectivity?
Sounds to me like you're aiming for some kind of deflationary theory of truth. I don't object.

We apply labels like "objective" and "true" to statements about things that we think other people will surely agree with. Justification is social. What we experience in and of itself is neither objective nor subjective. It doesn't arrive tagged for our convenience. We apply those labels after the fact.
Last edited by fleetmouse on Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: my approach

Post by fleetmouse » Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:59 pm

Metacrock wrote:is wave-particle duality objective? is it true?
It's useful.

doxaws
Site Admin
Posts:64
Joined:Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:07 am

Re: my approach

Post by doxaws » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:10 pm

met wrote:I think this direction is really interesting. Meta. In line with some current popular trends - the yoga craze, the neo-monasticism movement in xianity, the popularity of a writer like Ekhart Tolle - recent Western efforts to recover some perception that being has depth.

.. . can't wait for u to put a big long post on this topic up here! :)
I am far from an expert on the QM stuff.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: my approach

Post by Metacrock » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:11 pm

fleetmouse wrote:
Metacrock wrote:is wave-particle duality objective? is it true?
It's useful.
yes. I mean no. I mean, yes and no! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: nuc nuc nuc
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: my approach

Post by met » Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:11 pm

doxaws wrote:
met wrote:I think this direction is really interesting. Meta. In line with some current popular trends - the yoga craze, the neo-monasticism movement in xianity, the popularity of a writer like Ekhart Tolle - recent Western efforts to recover some perception that being has depth.

.. . can't wait for u to put a big long post on this topic up here! :)
I am far from an expert on the QM stuff.
QM?? :o I was talking about internality. Is that how u'd go about approaching it - QM? isn't that using the external (albeit very very small) to prove or justify the internal and, if so, isn't that still essentially a sort of 'ought from is' type proposition?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Post Reply